MarkS

Can't agree with you more kelpie-i Most definately if it was fear based, then a correction wouldn't have been used. This is a pup that just had not been set rules. Very confident, and a little controlling. When I stated a correction with this pup, I wasn't talking about being harsh, this pup settled very quickly due to my own body language, it sensed I was in control. One of the problems with the pups owner is that she projected a little insecurity, and this allowed the dog to control the situation. I worked more on the owners body language than on the dog. Fear based aggression is a touchy subject at times, but one thing I don't agree with is trying to calm a dog that is in fear with any reward. I believe best philosphy is lead by example. When modifying fear based aggression you will always create a little stress modifying this behaviour, but I believe one of the biggest problems people have with fear based aggression, is that most don't allow their dog to deal with the stress, to many just keep taking their dog away from a situation that the dog fears while the dog is stressed..This is not teaching a dog to deal with its own stress, a dog will eventually give in to low levels of stress and deal with it..we just have to allow our dogs to go through this and not see it as cruel. When we see it as cruel, we tend give into our dogs behaviour, and then the dog can never directly deal with it. Please note, I am not talking about overly stressing a dog, I am talking about low levels of stress that the dog can deal with. Each situation is different and dealt with in a different way. Its so important that we always walk away from a situation with the dog being a little more confident than when it came into the situation. Not sure I am making myself perfectly clear here, as I am typing this very quickly due to heading out...Not a good attitude to have...especially in dog training

Howdy Tony I get what you maybe thinking...pay attention to higher dog first? I used to go along with this philosophy, but over the years I have come less a believer in paying attention to higher dog first. If a dog is trying to get my attention I as packleader dictates who gets the attention, not the dogs. I used to think that if you didn't pay attetion to the higher dog first, you create competition and a dog that needs to reassert itself over the other dog. I look at dogs running together, higher dog doesn't always socialise with next inline first. He decides who he wants to socialise with, he doesn't allow a lower dog to dictate that. I feel that as long as my dogs see me as a packleader, and not one of them sees themself as packleader, then fighting or competing for leadership is less likely to happen. I find in homes where one dog has elevated himself to top position and that includes the family, then yes you will create competition for leadership by paying attention to the lower dog and pushing the higher dog away. But if my dogs respect me, then I dictate the rules. Most homes I have gone to and dogs are fighting for higher ranking, its because one of the dogs controls the home. If I have jumped in to early I apologise.... just a little of my philosophy anyways

Squeak Just a little point, usually turning your back is not being assertive toward your dog. When a dog asserts him/herself over another dog they don't turn their back on them, they move forwards, with assertive body language (claiming the space). Some may disagree with me here, I however believe for an overly assertive dog, you need to watch what he does and copy, but be more assertive. He doesn't turn his back on you to claim his space, he enforces it with confident body language. The method of turning your back on him may eventually work, but very slowly. Dogs are experts at picking up body language. For example if I want to stop my dog charging up to a door when visitors come, I turn and face my dog and claim the space with assertive body language, I don't turn my back on him. Sure I agree blocking does work in many situations, you have to take it case by case. Dogs that arn't overly assertive will usually give in to a block and walk off. Those that believe they control the space, its less likely to be as affective quickly.

Hi squeak In regards to the licking. Remove the attention as soon as he starts. For example, if you go to pat and he goes to lick your hand, immediately remove your hand and a firm no. Move hand forward again, he goes to lick, remove hand immediately, and firm no. Repetition and consistency is important. So many without realising give their dogs to many mixed signals. How many times when we are in a happy mood we allow a certain behaviour, then other times when not in the mood we correct the behaviour? The not allowing you to socialise with your other dog? I personally believe its about claiming your own space. Dogs learn very quickly that claiming space allows control. When a dog is trying to claim my space, I firmly push him away, and I keep at this every time he comes back to test me until he either gives in to it, or comes to me with more relaxed and non assertive body language. If you have the correct body language, and be assertive, your dog will eventually give in to it. If you watch dogs in their natural environment higher dogs claim their space. I use this method in many situations. I especially teach my dog that he NEVER invades my space without my permission. So even if for example I am just sitting on the floor, if my dog comes to me with assertive body language and invades my space, I push him away. If he comes over not trying to claim my space, but is more relaxed and in a calm state, I give him attention. I then decide when the game starts if any, not him. My dog knows when he wants to come and socialise with me, he is in a calm state, he understands I always claim my space.. I can then easily switch on an excited state and play rough with him, and also I can stop the game immediately with no effort, as I ALWAYS control my space, and he knows that. Hope this helps

Merry Christmas to you and your family Tony. Maybe in 2008 we can catch up sometime. It must be at least 28 years since I saw you. I still remember the rookie days! Cheers Mate!!

Kelpie-i My apologies I missed your question. Hmmm..does food cause aggression, only if you need to fight for it No, I would never sugest that using food is responsible for the rise in dog bites. I am suggesting the the Dog & Cat Management Board look at the possiblity that there maybe a connection between the number of dogs now doing totally positive reinforcement training than in the past, due to the fact that the board, welfare groups and most Vet surgeries now focused on and promoting this type of training. In the past twelve months or more the focus in Adelaide has been on totally positive training methods. Puppy pre-schools are focusing on just rewarding good behaviour, and ignoring unwanted behaviour. They are not taught how to correctly (in my opinion) imprint correct social behaviour in to puppies, as they are virtually turning away from treating dogs as dogs. As an example; I had one lady come to me 2 weeks ago with a rather exuburent Dobi female. She went to a positive trainer here in Adelaide. Her Dobi, lunged forward and had a go at another dog, this lady instinctively corrected her dog immediately, and placed her back by her side. The instructor told her off for using any negatives. Told her next time just pull your dog back gently and reward the dog with food when she is beside you. This lady after a few weeks was at her wits end, as the dog was getting worse and not better with these methods. Thats when she sought me out. This Dobi is around 9 months old. All this Dobi needed was a quick pop on a flat collar, and she gave into it totally and would allow any dog to walk past her. This in all of less than 5 mins. Now if totally positive methods are not working in this instance, how are they dealing with dog to human aggression? This Dobi is a beautiful dog, all she needed was some clear guidance and leadership. She is now working beautifully around other dogs. This case was a very simple one to fix. Puppy pre-schools now from what I understand are not dealing with overly assertive puppies correctly. Most are told to ignore the behaviour or use 'time-out' (which in many instances I have an issue with. But more on that later). I had another guy call me in total desperation. He had 2 GSD's, both had been brought up on the totally positive method again. This guy on the phone was very honest with me and said unless I can help him, he is getting rid of his dogs. His number one frustration is that he didn't know how to correct his dogs, as he was never taught that at his training. These dogs were now 18 months old, and he said he lost his temper with them quite a few times, and felt bad about it later. But these dogs were now ruling his house. When he came to me it was obvious these dogs were very assertive, and this assertive behaviour had never been dealt with correctly. He had no idea how to be assertive to his dogs in a way the dogs could understand. He was resorting to hitting them. One of these dogs resorted to retaliating with aggression. This guy couldn't believe how simple it was to really be in control, without being abusive. He had never been taught how to be assertive with his dogs. I can go on and on with case histories. But one that worries me the most is the family that follow thru with all these methods being taught now, and have an assertive dog at home, and this dog bites a child, all because a lack of proper leadership and a setting of bounderies and limitations. This no negative policy is crazy for many dogs. For some yes I agree you can achieve fantastic things, but these dogs are intinctively followers, and willingly follow. I believe its turned into a numbers game.. They do succeed on many dogs, and the ones they don't succeed with are left with no options but to seek out someone like me, or dump their dog. There is nothing wrong with rewarding with food, or any positive. What maters is the dogs current state of mind when we give the positive.

Mark claps his hands as Erny steps down from her soap-box! :rolleyes: None of us are right 100% of the time. Thats where active discussion such as this serves a wonderful purpose. We can all learn something from each other. Even a old stubborn Aries like me

I would have to disagree that its best to only use positves with inexperienced hands. Hmmmm.. I am wondering if this is the case, is it better then that if a positive doesn't work in inexperienced hands that we take on board only what welfare groups like the RSPCA tell us, and that is all training should be based on positives? Where does that leave our poor dog? Should we leave all corrective training only to the experienced? Hmmm then how can this corrective training be used..Aren't we ALL novices when we start? It saddens me when 'some' advocates of the totally positive dog training methods, see themselves as the righteous ones. We are ALL here for the one reason, our deep love and respect for the canine. I get so tired of those that see any negative as cruel. Our society, and the society our canines instinctively live is based on negatives and positives.. Thats life, and we all have to deal with that. Life isn't always a rosey positive path. Our biggest lessons are learnt from our mistakes, and in many situations our mistakes create a negative, that we must then turn around into a positive. I hear so many say, but using negatives in dog training can create stress in a dog.. Well I have news for them..stress is a part of life for ALL animals. Believe it or not..every living creature needs to experience stress at some level. The amount of stress we create is the issue, and all training should be as less stressful as possible. When a high ranking dog challenges a dog in a pack with a bite on the neck we say thats not cruel, it just dogs sorting out their pecking order. Tell me that both those dogs arn't experiencing a form of stress. Yet a dog owner that uses a fair and just negative to enforce a rule is considered cruel and creating unwarranted stress in the poor dog. Why is it that using negatives in behaviour management is seen as cruel by so many, yet the same people will watch their dogs occassionally challenge each other? Doesn't withholding a food reward in a highly food motivated dog create some form of stress? Many will say but witholding a food reward doesn't creat physical pain.. Hmmm how many people do you know that are in psychological pain due to an abusive relationship? That is so much worse than any physical pain. No trainer is out there to damage or overly stress a dog. Those that keep suggesting that trainers like me for example are a cruel bunch, really do need to take a good look at themselves. The number of owners out there that are at their wits end with their beloved dog, need someone to turn too. And if a totally positive method isn't working, then alternatives need to be used. Our number one priority is the dog and the relationship it has with its owner. I personally have lost count of the owners that have turned to me as a last resort, I have saved many a dogs life that totally positive methods just weren't working. Those that believe that all our training is based on negatives look at us with blinkers, and only see what they want to focus on. We only ever see what we believe. Because totally positive trainers are so against any form of negative reinforcement, thats their focus when they look at a trainer that advocates using positive and negative reinforcement. They only see the negatives, and when their state of mind is focused on a negative... it creates a 'negative' feeling inside. We that advocate using postive and when needed negative reinforcement, our main focus is on the postive, ALWAYS! You can only gain a positive response by using a positive. But you can also inhibit a negative behaviour by using a negative, in many instances. In South Australia the Dog and Cat Management Board brought out a discount on dog registration for obedience trained dogs, to promote responsible dog ownership. When this originally came out, the minimum standard was level 3 obedience. When the Dog & Cat Management Board aligned themselves with 'Delta' this level was dropped to the following level: Stay for 10 seconds Walk at heel for a distance of 5 metres Recall to handler from a distance of 1 metre within 3 commands Sit within 3 commands (Sit can be subsituted by down or stand in any exercise if the dogis unable to or uncomfortablesitting) Not aggressive when 2 metres from a dog which is sitting quietly with its handler I am at a loss to understand why the board even considers this a training level? I am also at a loss to understand why the board lowered the original level required for the discount? Something is going very wrong with our society when we use this level of obedience to show that an owner is now responsible and has a trained dog, and now deserves a discount in dog registraion. I personally feel like an idiot passing these certificates out to my clients. But life goes on......

Thanks to all those that support me, and those that don't. All discussion helps us learn and move forward, as long as we keep open minds.

Oh I agree with you dogdude... 100% Especially in dog training. I know that we all want a purely positive and wonderful world, and I hope oneday we can achieve this.. We just need to stop voting insecure leaders into power. I'm praying for the day I get $50.00 for stopping at red lights, and not have to pay fines for going through them. I think I'll get to work MUCH faster then Insecure leaders need to create insecurity in those they want to lead. My reference to earlier post. A dog leads in a lot of instances because he has an insecure owner helping him to lead. I know this sounds a little mean but its true. If the dog owner was confident and assertive, then an insecure leader cannot be created. :rolleyes: Therefore a much happier dog and owner......... Boy I think I'm getting tooo sleepy, and having trouble making sense of myself now... time for bed

My thought for the day. I am sure I read back further about instincts and how ALL animals live instinctively. As much as we try not to admit it, even humans still live by their basic primal instincts. Even millions of years of evolution hasn't gotten rid of all our instincts. We like to believe we all treat each other as equals.. but how true is this in reality? How many of us willingly follow or respect a weak or inconsistent leader? Even though we may try, instinct tells us its wrong. We then 'instinctively' challenge this leadership, by refusing to coporate or putting up a challenge. We mock leaders that show signs of insecurity whether its in the workplace, society or on a national and international level (hmmm..why does President Bush suddenly come in to my mind? ). If purely positive methods work to overide natural instincts, why hasn't human society followed this philosophy? Why haven't we changed our laws to reward all our positive behaviours and ignore our negative or bad behaviours? Only one reason..instinct will overide eventually. Sure remove a subject from reality, and in time you can probably make this subject do almost anything with purely positive responses. Leaders of countries have learn't that the easiest way to control its people is through fear. If leaders believed that by always rewarding behaviour will condition the people to follow willingly, then why don't we see it? Because in reality it doesn't work! Look how we are all controlled now..by the fear of terrorism. Sure terrorism is a real threat.. but to control your people and instill over exagerated fear for control to make newer and more controlling laws? I would like to know the numbers of people around the world that are killed in car accidents or murders compared to acts of terrorism. When the iron curtain dissappeared from Russia, USA had to find another 'evil doer' to ensure control was maintained, hence the overly exaggerated threat of terrorism. This is not to sugest that September 11 and Bali were not absolutely barbaric acts. They most definately were. USA knows that to be seen as a power in the world, it needs to control by positive and negative reinforcement. They need to prove they are the 'packleaders'. Natural Instinct gone MAD!! Insecure leadership! Boy am I rambling here... sorry. But the point I believe I am trying to make is that if purely positive was such a powerful tool/force, we would see it in all areas of our life. The true reality is, is that we will not. Why are there so many dog bites and dog attacks these days? Insecure leaders!! Create an insecure leader of your dog, and you will have a dog that will learn to control by aggression/fear (hmmm again Bush pops into my head)..in most instances. Why? because when a dog becomes aggressive, in most instances dog owners will back down! A packleader never backs down..unless it comes across a stronger challenge than it can mentaly and physically beat. So we are creating in the dog a new law for it to follow..Lead by intimidation, and instill fear! Thats not 'natural dog intinct', we have put this burdon on our dogs by allowing non natural leaders to lead. A true follower (lowerpack animal), is instinctively a follower. This is not to say they are weak or stupid, they are merely followers. Without followers you have no leaders or peacemakers. Lowest packmembers are usually the peace makers of the pack, they help to lessen any tension building up within the pack. How many people admit that they wouldn't like to be a boss at work? Why?, because instinct tells them they are naturally the followers, and usually the peacemakers.. Reward these people 100%, and they will still follow. We all need leaders and followers, if we didn't have this deep instinct, society would probably fall apart. So to sugest that there is now no such thing as a dominant dog, because we have bred these instincts out of a dog, is also in away denying our own natual instincts. Give a natural leader only positives, and he will eventually try and gain control. The theory I hear so much in regards to terms such as dominance and assertive behaviour is in my eyes really trying to cut hairs. We are both talking about the same thing.. control of resources, and maintaining discipline within a pack. All Social animals seek leadership..It's instinct! I feel many are trying to see in their dogs, the perfect world where everyone and everything is in equal place on the social ladder. Many are expressing their dreams hopes and wishes through the way they see their dogs. To deny your own natural instincts, is in a way denying them in our beloved canine.. No wonder he is so confused.. He doesn't have those dreams, he exists as God intended him to...with natural order. But unlike Bush and others around the world, insecure canine leaders do not make it as the packleader in their natural state.. They are never allowed to get that high in the social stucture of the 'current' pack, because they are not psychologically strong enough to maintain a challenge, they eventually give in.. We can learn so much from our canines natural instincts if we chose too. So many dogs are learning this unnatural skill of leading by aggression, because we are creating in our dogs insecure leaders. Allowing an insecure leader to control is creating leadership by fear! Thats what our poor dogs are learning from US! We are teaching our dogs to use aggression to lead (lead by instilling fear). It's not our dogs fault. Hmmm...who are the more intelligent creatures here? At times I really do wonder! To state that a dogs trust is destroyed by using negative and positive reinforcement, is like saying if I reward my dog to much with food he will get fat and die. Of course there are abuses, nobody denys this. But a well balanced training system ONLY fosters trust! You only have to look at a police dog and his handler to see this ultimate level of trust. I don't believe trust is only a condition of positives. Its created by consistent and fair leadership. Boy will I get an ear bashing now :rolleyes:

Yes ROM..Leadership and control opinion by censorship! If you can only read one point of view..then you can easily control thoughts. People that need to censor opinion, act out of insecurity.. No different to the insecure bitting dog. Thats why communisum worked in some countries. But since the advent of the internet..communisum is slowly crumbling... To easy to get ALL points of view now. You can't as easliy control the people, and what they learn anymore. Thank God!

Thanks Tony Yes that last response to the newspaper article was from me. I feel the Dog and Cat Management Board have now lost touch as to their real purpose here in SA. It's to promote 'RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP', not push for a certain training method. Look on their sites, the only dog training they promote are 'Delta'. Not that I have an issue with them promoting dog trainers, but they need to have a more balanced outlook. Delta do have their good points, don't get me wrong. But to blanket all dogs with their training philosophy is WRONG in my eyes. Here's a little exerpt from my dog training site. This article goes a lot longer, but I am tired of people stating that because it works on dolphins, it works on ALL animales. Dolphins aren't taught obedience! How can a dolphin be taught bounderies and limitations when it is kept so removed from reality? My dog would be the perfect pet if I kept him removed from reality as well.. come to think of it, I probably would be too ______________________________________ People that call themselves 'Totally Positive Reward Based Trainers' tend to get caught up in scientific studies and journals on operant and classical conditioning (which ALL training is based on, whether you use totally positive methods or not), however they seem to have totally forgotten the most important fundimental information, and that is the dog is instinctively a social pack animal that has inherited natural instincts and drives that has helped him survive for 1,000's of years. The dog doesn’t live in a laboratory cage like pavlov’s dog. But has to deal with real life and real life situations. So many 'Positive Reward Based Trainers' tell me all exotic animals are trained with totally positive reinforcement, so that proves it works. Of course they are, and 99% of them live in a cage! Very sterile environments.. It is so easy to condition an animal if you please it while it's confined in a sterile environment (even humans). A classic example are dolphins in a marine park. Kept in sterile pools with no outlet, mentally or physically for them, until the trainer comes out to feed it. I to would jump, catch ball, and do crazy tricks if I was kept so removed from reality. I to would look forward to my trainer coming out to feed me, at least my stomach gets full again, and I get some mental and physical stimulation…. I guarantee any animal kept in those conditions will train almost 100% with totally positive reinforcement. Try training the same dolphin out in the ocean where there is so much more to distract it both physically and mentally. Would totally positive reward based training work 100% of the time then? Of course not. Being kept in a sterile environment like a pool, cage, laboratory or tank is not true life reality. These dolphins are not obedience trained, they are performing tricks. Our dogs have to adjust and survive in an open world, full of distractions, and owners need to know that they can control their dog no matter what the situation or distraction. Remember we are working on instilling obedience in our dogs, not training for tricks. ____________________________________________________________ ___ I am sure there will be many that disagree with my opinions, and thats ok, as long as we can all take a little something from each other.. hopefully we can then improve on what we all tend to be doing wrong. I do use totally positive methods, and have achieved fantasic results from it..but not as a blanket training system. Hope I haven't upset too many. Take care all Mark

Hi all I see the post on the RSPCA site has caused a bit of a storm here This is Mark. That post I wrote to the RSPCA was in reponse to a thread they had going in regards to corret training methods, and equipment that they agrre with and don't agree with. This post went on for a few weeks, until the RSPCA pulled it stating a bug had gotten into the system and they lost all the posts. Strange how the bugs only decided to eat that thread! That letter posted on this site is a very, very, small edited version of my response to them (RSPCA). My post was much longer and more detailed. Also let me say, I never stated purely positive training was a 'blanket' no good training method (I use it myself when appropriate). I was simply trying to get the point across that it wasn't suitable for ALL dogs, and that dog training and behaviour modification needs to be more balanced. I'd like to offer this article for comment, published in the Advertiser Newspaper in SA. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comment...5006301,00.html Cheers everyone Mark