corvus

Erny, I think that the difference in names is purely a matter of marketing. Harsh training tools and methods aren't popular anymore. People don't want to do mean things to their animals. So give it a name that sounds like it's not harsh. :nahnah: It's not some great big conspiracy. It's like condom packets that come with pictures of sexy male torsos on them, or "feminine hygiene products". Why not have pictures of actual condoms on condom packets? Why not call them "menstrual products"? Marketing is a beautifully complex and elegant thing. It's also full of lies.

Er... Because it works? I think that is VERY dangerous ground. There is absolutely no need to demonise check chains and this thread is not, IMO, political or trying to do that. But to suggest that a dog might not even be feeling a sense of being choked due to a correction given with a check chain seems like an unnecessary and dangerous speculation. If we don't know, why would you not err on the side of caution? It's a pretty fair assumption as far as I can tell. I know I'm as sensitive as hell to something even resting gently against my windpipe. I can get used to it, but the initial reaction is to try to relieve the slightest amount of pressure whether I'm choking or not. That is adaptive as far as I can tell. Probably a good idea to be very sensitive about pressure on your windpipe. It would be nice to have an honest discussion about these tools without the politics. I think many people participating are trying to do exactly that, HR. Personally, I will believe that tight check chains result in a choking sensation until someone offers me a good alternative argument. If you just want a moment of discomfort you can get that easily enough on a flat collar, so why even use a check chain? In fact, you can get it on a full body harness. Keep it honest. Use a check chain if you want/need, but don't try to make it into something better than it is. Be honest about why it works. It's not that bad. Like I said, animals get used to that kind of thing. First day I wore a tie to school I thought I was going to choke. Once I was a "tight tied" veteran I didn't even rip the tie off the moment I left school grounds anymore.

Sounds very similar to something that happened to me. I made several mistakes in quick succession that resulted in me holding my little corgi up above my head and pushing a very excited, large bully breed off me repeatedly. I think it is often a mistake to lift small dogs up, but sometimes it's better than leaving them down. I usually try to fend the other dogs off. Erik makes it easy because when he needs a break he crawls between my legs. He is a tough little bastard, though, and doesn't often need a break! I do love having the Ruff Wear harnesses with a handle on the back. They are very handy!

Let me try to be diplomatic... The sensation of choking is in that "panic" category along with the sensation of falling, and when you were little, thinking you knew your mum was just in the next aisle over in BigW and rounding the corner into said aisle to find she is no longer there. I imagine this is why so many puppies flip out the moment they feel pressure on their flat collars (and one of the reasons why I don't usually attach leashes to collars, or use time outs, but that's another topic). The thing is, you can get habituated to all sorts of outrageous things. If someone tightens a chain collar around your neck often enough and you survive it, it's going to gradually be less scary over time. If the choking sensation is sudden and of short duration, it's not as stressful. Now, if you figure out how you can make the choking stop, it's going to be even less stressful. And we all know there are those dogs that learn to just work through it. Ultimately, if you're a clever dog and you have a good handler, you'll learn how to avoid the choking sensation all together, as the OP's dog has.

Kivi is a whiner. He whines whenever things aren't quite right in his world. He whines and cries so often during play with Erik that Erik no longer pays any attention to him. I've watched him, and he whines when Erik is barely touching him! If he's very excited he sometimes does a bark and a woo. He has unmistakably joyous barks, frustration barks, warning barks, and "I feel like I'm missing something lately" barks. I find the last ones are usually that he needs cuddles.

Thanks Staranais, that is more or less what I was saying. By deprivation I mean actually causing appetite. Daisy might act hungry all the time (a lot of dogs do), but that doesn't necessarily mean she is hungry all the time. At some point her body has to be able to tell her that she seriously needs to find some food rather than just that she should eat any food she finds regardless of whether she needs it or not. This was the point I was making with bringing up appetite versus pleasantness. The body has to know the difference between what it needs to live and what it likes to have. In answer to the prey drive question, I think we can safely fall back on not tampering too much with an animal's needs. If we define that as giving the animal the opportunity to engage in the full range of its natural behaviours, I think that prey drive satisfaction falls quite firmly within that definition as a need. I bet if you deprived a dog with high prey drive of prey drive satisfaction you would end up with a stressed dog. Same as if you don't give a dog enough exercise their behaviour gets a bit neurotic.

Just bumping this with a little update. Although it is still not confirmed, it looks as though they did breed this season. All evidence points to it being very likely. There is a rumour they might be in the Royal, but it is not confirmed. The local council has been very good about it, doing letterbox drops and sending people out to collect toads. The public are asked not to kill any toads, but to call someone either at the council or NPWS to come and collect them for a positive ID and so forth. There's not much that can be done in winter, but the hope is the cold months will give everyone a chance to convince the landowners where the likely breeding site is to allow people on their land to see just what the heck is going on and probably trap toads at the breeding pond. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Sydney is not the ideal climate for toads and I think there's a fair chance of taking care of this before it gets out of control. Here's hoping.

It's a shame no one has answered this, because it's a real curly one IMO. It's good to figure out where your moral boundaries lie. I didn't want to dominate the conversation seeing as I don't compete with my dogs and don't have anything I need any of my animals to have an above normal appetite for, but seeing as no one else has answered, I'll give my tentative answer. To me, we're talking about the difference between appetite and pleasantness. Deprivation of anything that a dog has an appetite for creates a higher sensitivity towards both rewarding and aversive stimuli. There are some papers floating around that talk about the difference between appetite and palatability (want vs like) with food, suggesting that these things come about along entirely different pathways in the brain. Further, deprivation to the extent where an appetite for something is created can be stressful. The degree of stressfulness is a big fat question mark if you ask me, but it's something to consider when you decide to use deprivation. Personally, I don't really feel comfortable messing with appetites. I'm sure they get hungry at times, and I'm sure they sometimes feel they need some social play or whatever, but I'm not comfortable trying to increase those appetites for training purposes. I think that there are times when it would be helpful, but at this point I consider it potentially too stressful for the advantages gained. That is entirely my personal take. I take meeting my animals' needs very seriously. I don't want my animals to feel hungry for anything. They can want my toys real bad, though.

No... I reread the post in question and it really does sound like the poster is suggesting the OP use a different term that will "sit better" with them. I hardly think the OP is looking for something to hide behind. Doesn't matter, though. You can always call 'em necklaces. I used to think they were very pretty when I was little. Everyone used them! I also didn't know what a prong looked like until a couple of years ago. I was picturing something completely different, not spikes at all. And that was after several years of watching the arguments raging back and forth about them online! I am honestly surprised there would be many people that would know what a prong was if you just mentioned them in conversation.

When I used to visit a different forum, which was predominantly populated by "positive only" (so to speak) sectors, I found that the people there began to get nasty, snipey and/or sarcastic towards people when they'd actually run out of good reasonable argument to support their views. Sorry, I didn't mean that as a snipe. More of an ironic observation. Just struck me as funny to advise someone to use a different term if the one they are using is making them feel bad about punishment. Isn't that a bit strange when you think about it? :p Calling something by another name because you don't want to be misunderstood is one thing, but because the current term makes you feel bad about using punishment? Punishment is unpleasant by definition. The negative connotations belong IMO. I wouldn't neutralise a word about rewards so I didn't feel so happy about using them. Doesn't mean I won't use punishments, but it does mean I'll always feel bad about it and I like it that way. Motivates me to find ways to avoid using them. Anyway, call it a check chain if you want. I do, these days. But I grew up calling them chokers and basically that name means nothing to me. No little twinge of concern or negativity, and I've never had an impulse to actually use one to choke a dog. I used one for years without ever actually making the connection between "choker" and what you might use them for. In all honesty, I thought they were called chokers because they looked like the jewelry of the same name.

Oh, I see. Just call it something that doesn't make you feel so bad. Suddenly, a lot of things make sense.

I said "I think". That means I don't know for sure. It is based on my experiences and I can't quantify it. I would never be able to. Too many variables. Unfortunately, science is only just becoming interested in stressing an animal in any way but quite cruelly and intensely to see what will happen, and rarely do they see what happens over a long period. The best I know so far is that if you do quite mean things to rats when they are young (like social deprivation) it has a long-term impact on their ability to cope with stress and changes their sensitivity both to rewards and aversives. There is some very subtle stuff going on and we are only just scraping the surface. I don't think anyone's game to make a welfare call on it yet, but ask me again in 3 years. :D And the more folks that participate in my study when it gets off the ground the better we'll be able to answer questions like this. seems to be contradictory to what you've said almost directly after that here : Really? How so? My point in both cases is that the effects of stress can be very subtle and transient. I answered it as well as I could. It just ain't as simple as "is one more stressful than the other". Re the survey on corrections, I heard it from an academic and I was just rushing out the door at the time so it was like "Really? That's huge!" and then I had to leave, so I'll try to track it down but I don't have it handy and I don't have any details on who did it. Extinction bursts can be the height of cruelty. You can shape backwards, though. Ted Turner talks about shaping unwanted behaviours out instead of wanted behaviours in. He rewards less and less intense negative responses.

I think Lindsay and you are talking about two different things, here. A lot of things that people think are P+ are interruptors or NRMs. See above. I sure as hell will pussy foot and think real hard before I decide to create an inhibition. That's not something to mess around with IMO.

All things equal, I think that P+ always has fallout. I don't think that it is always serious, and sometimes I never do figure out what it is, but I'm not willing to assume that because I can't tell what it is it isn't there. I think that R+ also has side-effects, but I think they are easier to control and more likely to disappear on their own because of the very nature of rewards vs aversives. Talking about stress levels is not particularly useful in such a general discussion. It is such subtle stuff and so variable. If you were going to say well delivered rewards versus well delivered punishments in total isolation, I would say rewards are less stressful purely because the response to aversives has its evolutionary basis in avoiding harm, whereas the evolutionary basis of reward-seeking behaviour is gaining a bonus. However, nothing exists in isolation in dog training, and nothing is really all that simple. I think that R+ focus promotes pre-emptive training, which in turn avoids the need for aversives. I also think it promotes subtlety, deep understanding of rewards and motivations, appreciation for the way different dogs approach life, attention to minute detail, and encouraging a dog to feel safe and secure enough to take risks in trying new things, which ultimately makes training easier.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about. The thread is about NDTF -vs- Delta Courses. NDTF teaches all four quadrants (P+ P- R+ R-). Delta not only doesn't do that but it vehemently prescribes against P+. We're saying that causes limitations, and often to the detriment of some dogs. You agree that P+ has its place. So ....... I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Well, I thought I made it pretty clear seeing as I repeated it a few times and all, but here we go again. I am arguing that ignoring P+ needn't be a limitation. I'm arguing that the accreditation doesn't matter nearly as much as your basic skill as a trainer. I'm arguing that the Delta trainers I have met are not "purely positive" in my experience anyway. I'm arguing that every organisation and every philosophy has their share of rubbish trainers, so it's meaningless to single one out. Whenever I read these threads I see a whole lot of back-patting going on while the discussion centres around supposed extremists that aren't actually here to defend themselves. Let's be serious and leave the extremists out of it. There are no extremists on this board. Just people that care about dogs. Let's stop using extreme examples as evidence of why we are right. It's like watching Dawkins rant about religion, pulling out every extremist he can find to prove his point. It's not very convincing.

In the first volume of Lindsay's book he says "Unfortunately, aversive training methods are often inadequately understood or applied in cases where positive methods would suffice." Lindsay's books provide a thorough, honest, and very detailed summary of what we know about aversive learning, what effect aversives have on dogs in various situations, possible pitfalls and misuses, side-effects to consider, and a list of guidelines on the use of punishments, with the very first one being "Punishment should be used only after other positive training options have been carefully considered or exhausted." And there's the rub. I'm sure that everybody here who uses punishments believes they have exhausted or accurately ruled out the use of positive methods before they go to punishments. So where does that leave us? With a whole bunch of people that vehemently disagree over the application of the very first guideline for the use of punishment. I've seen and have dealt with myself self-rewarding behaviours without punishments. I have dealt with self-rewarding behaviours with punishments. What I decide to do depends on the strength of the behaviour, how long it has been going on, how dangerous it is, how easily it is managed, what I understand to be at the root of it, and how often punishments have been used already. This is so subjective it is ridiculous to expect everyone to agree with the method used. So why even try? All you can do is keep pushing the envelope and challenging yourself. It's not that hard. You make mistakes, you need aversives, you learn. What are we arguing about? Just that grey area between what you believe to be the limit of rewards and what someone else believes is the limit of rewards. That grey area is defined by individual experiences. Seeing as my aim is to use the least amount of aversives and invasive methods as I can, if someone says they've done it or seen it done without punishments I hold that up as the thing to aim for. If a Delta trainer wanted to learn about using aversives, all the info is right there in Lindsay's books in plain English. He's done all the work for us and even gone so far as to iterate how it relates to dog training. We need only learn from it if we want. So what does it matter what accreditation you have or who taught you? You are the one in charge of what you are exposed to and how you use it. Being a good trainer has crap all to do with whose logo is on your certificate and everything to do with your willingness to keep on learning, your own personal moral standards, and your ability to apply what you have learnt.

And you know that all "positive" trainers aren't ineffectual, permissive and prone to recommending euthanasia for easily fixable problems. It is amusing that I so often hear "you don't understand the philosophy/method" from trainers that use corrections freely who apparently haven't realised that the vast majority of positive trainers have crossed over from correctional methods. They have all been there and done that. I don't think there even is a "balanced" philosophy. There are folks that will use aversives more readily than others. There are folks whose idea of Least Invasive, Minamally Aversive is different to that of other folks. There are folks that have experienced different things that have led to different levels of caution. I haven't had these philosophy 'discussions' countless times across cyberspace for 6 years and not heard it all a dozen times or more. The arguments never change and likely never will, and the failure of any one person to agree with any other one person will always result in comments about not understanding the method or not having enough experience. It is so boring and pointless. Especially when I'm not even interested in the great debate anymore. I just want people to be fair to each other, fair to methods that work, and fair to their dogs. My problem is not with some supposed "balanced" or otherwise philosophy. My problem is with an entire training basis being slammed because some trainers that subscribe to it are not very good at what they do for a living. And that goes for any training philosophy regardless of my own approach. Why the focus on tools? I can have a rich and fulfilling relationship with any creature I share my life with if I am kind to them, sensitive to their emotional state and the things that drive them, empathetic, and compassionate towards them. I build relationships, not houses. What discussion are you following, 'cause that ain't what I've been suggesting. Let's be serious adults, here, and leave the extremist arguments in the loony bin where they belong. I will repeat, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to use P+ provided you are good at what you do use. You can get an awful long way without those punishments. What is wrong is recommending euthanasia because you aren't skilled enough to handle a problem. As Cosmolo said, just refer it! Incidentally, my latest brush with a Delta trainer didn't leave me thinking them particularly "purely positive". Like most trainers I've ever met, they were a "reward what you want, ignore what you don't want, correct what you really don't want" trainer.

Maybe it's just too distracting at school? Whenever you do something your dog knows in a new place it's basically as if it's a whole new thing to them. Have you tried doing the exercise in different places around your home and in different contexts? Try surprising him by dropping something on the ground next to your foot and telling him to leave it. You can put your foot on it if he goes for it. Try it on walks, or in the front yard, on the coffee table, while you're sitting outside the shops... that kind of thing.

I suppose I think that is quite laughable that a "balanced" system is being ignored. It clearly isn't to me if I have trouble finding a trainer that doesn't use positive punishment even if they don't admit to it. It clearly isn't when my OH's parents paid good money to be told to treat their chronically nervous Min Pin with a firm hand and corrections. It isn't if what I heard about a recent survey indicating that 20% of Australian trainers have or would use a prong collar or e-collar is true. It certaintly isn't when you hear some of the horror stories about how people are told to handle their dogs when they misbehave. Ineffectiveness is the least of it. I'm not arguing that there are not rubbish positive trainers out there. Not in the least. I'm arguing that it's not the philosophy; it's the trainers. Ignorance through choice truly is an outrage. And that goes for anything. Except maybe illicit drugs... But I think you missed the point of my post. Just because it's hard for some folks doesn't mean it can't be done. There's nothing inherently wrong with deciding not to use P+. There is something wrong with deciding not to use P+ and also not being particularly good at any of the other options and then taking it upon yourself to recommend a dog be killed because you can't help it. I would take a deliberately ignorant trainer over a balanced trainer any day as long as the ignorant one was good at what they did. And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

I'm the one in our house that tries to keep the no dogs on the bed rule. It's not really a rule so much as a loose standard that can be stretched and bent into all sorts of accommadating shapes. I'm still winning out, just. Erik is shaping us, though. He is constantly stretching those bed rules, finding the weaknesses and pushing the limits. He sneaks up for a cuddle with OH when I'm asleep and I never know about it until OH taunts me with it long after the fact. One day we'll get a Basenji and it will all be over. My long struggle will come to an abrupt end in the face of a willful dog with a strong motivation to find a soft and warm place to sleep with company.

Can you expand a bit on that? I'm not sure I follow exactly what is going on. He doesn't play the game, just looks at you for the food at home, but at school he just goes straight for the item he was told to leave?

Yet, there is a hell of a lot you can achieve without positive punishment if you know what you're about. I used to watch it weekly on Barking Mad when I was living in the States. Aggressive turtle? No problem, positive methods all the way. Aggressive sheep? Lets teach it agility and how to walk on a leash with rewards - look at that, no more aggression towards people. Pony that chases and bites its owners? A little R-, a lot of R+ and the problem is solved. They dealt with everything from a bored octopus to a GSD that needed to be muzzled when visitors came and I don't ever remember them resorting to P+. They might have done aversion training with noise, but I'm not sure. I was starting to think there was nothing that team of behaviourists couldn't handle with rewards and environmental enrichment alone. Seeing it done in so many varying situations with such wildly different animals was a pretty good lesson in just how far you could get without P+ if you could identify what the problem at the root of the animal's behaviour was. The problem is not the philosophy, but the inability to apply it particularly well.

The way I see it, most of the time you can achieve what you need or want with rewards alone. Most of the time. Every now and then a problem sneaks up on you, or was present before you could train pre-emptively, and it occurs to you that what you really need is to create an inhibition. To me, that is the only time I would use corrections or punishments. I am really rigorous about this. I avoid punishments like the plague and I wholeheartedly believe that there is always fallout from using them. You just don't always know what it is right away. BUT, that's not to say they have no place in training, or that the fallout is not sometimes worth it. What you decide to do is entirely your call and I for one would never judge you for that. I personally would not hesitate to use a punishment if I felt that it was needed. It's good to feel bad about it because after all, it's aversive by definition and no one should feel good about doing aversive things to their dogs. But that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

LOL ..... if you were thinking with your front brain you'd know it was a manner of speaking and in an attempt to be simplistic when details are unnecessary for the purpose of writing. You're right. "Doesn't matter". I presume you were being jovial by raising it? LOL Yes... jovial... And nervous. Brain talk in training makes me I know I don't understand the brain very well, despite recently reading a pile of papers on the brain chemistry of rewards, anticipation, and appetite. The more you learn the less you realise you know. I was being jovial to cover up my own nervousness. :D Glad to hear my nervousness was misplaced. Good luck, Stitch. It'll be interesting to hear how you go. It's the tricky ones that teach us the most.

Haha, fleas are about the least disgusting external parasite I've ever had to deal with. A couple of months ago we had a bizarre mite infestation. Those little buggers burrow under your skin and left me with huge itchy welts. Bats carry wingless, bloodsucking flies. Kinda gross when you're trying to ID one and you can see these bugs crawling all over them. I was out at the lower Murrumbidgee doing fish work last year and seeing an enormous, orange and black tiger leech easily three or four times the size of the fish it was feeding off... But the worst I've seen is botflies on baby birds. They leave this big ugly hole in the skin and as you watch the little maggot pokes its head out, then ducks back in again. Yuck. People can get botflies. *shudder*