corvus

But K9, surely in this discussion the tool should be the focus seeing as it is the tool that is controversial. I'm sure we can all agree that any tool can be misused by trainers and that is the very thing that colours people's opinions of them. But if it can be said of any tool then how can it be used as an argument for or against any tool? The issue in my mind is not whether it can be misused but its potential for harm when it is. By harm I mean physical and emotional. The way it is spoken about you would think it was either a torture device or made of cotton candy. Why can't we just have a rational dialogue about it where we don't have to take sides? It appears I've already been categorised as anti-prong by virtue of the fact that everyone knows I like my clickers and counter-conditioning. As it happens, I have been on the fence about prongs for years because no one has ever given me a simple list of pros and cons. I have never seen a rational weighing of the pros and cons. Only marketing.

Oh, FFS. I have been careful not to even MENTION a way of training. Let me spell it out to you: As far as I'm concerned there is NO WAY to tell what way is the right way or the best way. Was that clear? Therefore, because there is no way to tell, there is no sense in claiming that a prong collar is the best or only way to solve a problem, and there is no point in me answering questions about what I think is the right or wrong way to train some hypothetical dog I have never laid eyes on. These methods debates are the equivalent of a bar fight. People only get into them for a bit of biffo.

I think it is up to the individual to decide their own truth. I also think it is fairly pointless to try and debate stuff like this as both sides just end up talking at the other. No one is going to change their mind. The most you can hope for is that respect for other people's opinions is achieved. Right, I agree. It's utterly pointless, particularly in this context. But I don't think the debate should be about training methods anyway. I'm not the only one that has said that.

Forget it.

:rolleyes: "Best"? "Incorrect"? "Desired results?" "Clearly"? You have missed my point. It doesn't matter whether I agree or not. It doesn't matter who agrees or doesn't. By the way, I have always loved your use of quotation marks. :D Then market away, honey. It's nothing the other side can't counter with their own illustrative examples. Call me stupid, then. I'm pretty sure it'd be a first for me, ignoring jest. I call the above fear mongering. The precedent was set years ago.

You know that reasoning is flawed, don't you? There is no possible way to judge that objectively. To me, this is part of the problem. It's impossible to use any one example to base a decision on because there are too many variables. It's impossible to use a collection of examples to base a decision on because there are too many variables. Seriously, if you want to present a good argument that's going to convince anyone sitting on the fence or on the other side, you have to leave the individual examples and emotive roundabout arguments behind and stick to facts. As far as I'm aware the only established facts about prongs is that they are associated with behaviour indicative of distress and that they are effective correction devices. It would cost next to nothing to do a survey of dog owners and establish how many people actually use prong collars and how often. I would be surprised if the numbers suggested they were in wide use. That alone is a reasonable argument for not banning them IMO. Much more reasonable than "they save lives" and "they are sometimes the best tool". Banning prongs is going to lead to the banning of all control tools and therefore the banning of pet dogs?? Can anyone spell "hysteria"?

Who's to say banning them would even have an impact? It's not like they are easy to get now. According to one of Pauline Bennett's studies, almost 10% of dog training facilities around Melbourne use them anyway, despite the ban in Victoria. Obviously didn't stop Nekhbet.

I did foundation agility through Dapto and they were very good. Toujour does obedience through them and when I asked her how she liked it she said she was very happy.

I feel like I remember a thread like that. Was it this one: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/139457-are-prong-colars-illegal-to-sell-in-nsw/page__p__2787547__hl__%2Bimport+%2Bprong+%2Bcollars__fromsearch__1#entry2787547 No two ways to interpret that... There are always going to be conflicts in interest between welfare and control/safety, I think. Take horse bits, for example.

I don't think you can make generalisations about how aversive a tool is. Obviously it changes from dog to dog and from moment to moment and from handler to handler, even under the banner of "proper use". I also consider claims that a tool or method were the only one that would work unsubstantiated. Having never even laid eyes on the dog in question, I'm in no position to believe or disbelieve those claims. I think for that reason, the arguments need to stay squarely in the realms of the potential to do harm. In my mind, we can train people all we like to use things like prongs and e collars properly, but the potential for harm due to misuse doesn't change. As Steve White has mentioned, punishing a dog is rewarding to the handler. Because it makes the annoying/upsetting behaviour stop. Even if just for a moment. Steven Lindsay notes that all collars used forecefully against the neck (including prongs and head halters) may cause prolonged pain and/or bruising. It's got to come down to how easy it is to cause harm through misuse. As far as I know, no one has ever quantified that.

You were the one who put it forth as an argument for supporting prong collars. If it's a roundabout argument, is it a good one to base an opinion on? Well, we know prong collars have to be aversive in the first place, or they wouldn't work. So it's more like asking whether a convicted criminal is a small time crook or a drug lord or one of those women that give other women abortions when it's illegal or something. Everyone knows that aversives are vital to life and a big part of learning about the environment and so forth, but that doesn't make them pleasant. I would assume a bird flies unless proven otherwise, wouldn't you?

Is there any evidence that they don't cause pain or harm? I've never seen any evidence for or against prong collars in all my literary wanderings. There are some people out there working with very challenging dogs that don't ever speak of them except to lump them into an "aversive training tools" category. Head collars, yes. CAT, BAT, counter-conditioning, desensitisation, even full body restraint. I've only ever found one study that examined the effect of prong collars (http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=992370272&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=992370272.pdf and it concluded that they were more distressing to dogs during police dog training than electronic collars.

Well, that's a relief. Did you tell them collars cause cancer? The internets says so, so it must be true. Ahh that's why you shouldn't believe everything you read you on the internet or in books which outdate quickly. People should actually step out into the real world and see what it's really like instead of hiding behind computer desks and under mountains of usless bits of paper that make them feel important. Uh huh. Those learning theory books, they outdate so fast. But who would know when they are busy out there in the real world training dogs?

Well, that's a relief. Did you tell them collars cause cancer? The internets says so, so it must be true.

I would love to use Riley. :D Training sessions go for 30 minutes, plus it takes about 10 minutes to set up the apparatus. So far I have a dog on his 14th training session and he's very close to mastering the discrimination task, and then it will be another three sessions for testing his optimism. He has a friend who is also on her 14th training session and is still probably at least 4 sessions away from mastering the discrimination task. So it kind of depends on the dog how many sessions they need. I generally do one session a day with them, but rarely do weekends. They can go up to 5 days between training sessions if something like a long weekend or a few very busy days come up. So in summary, about 40 minutes a day (minus weekends and other interruptions) for maybe 4 weeks, give or take. It's largely automated, so we just sit back and watch them work. It's quite interesting watching them being trained by a machine. You get a real sense of their personality and learning style.

Mita, I bet he's plenty optimistic. ;) If the reward was a game of tug he'd be all over it. Yes, it is through the University of Sydney and is related to the personality survey I did earlier. Optimism and pessimism is shorthand for cognitive bias in judgement. It's a very interesting topic and may yet prove to be an excellent assessor of welfare. We will see, though. It's never been tested on a large number of individual animals. Hopefully I can change that for dogs at least!

Bump. I need one more dog for this pilot study. Well, probably two, as one of the current ones has an incredibly short attention span and would rather be wrestling.

You can totally shape this. Flyball harness in one hand, heap of food in the other, hold the food juuuust out of her reach, and as soon as you get the slightest lean into the harness, jackpot. It won't take long at all for her to catch on to the game and then you can put pushing forward on cue. I teach my dogs to push back against my hand this way as a secondary reinforcer. Started teaching the hare to do it as well, actually. I never got around to putting it on cue, but I was using it to get him used to more firm contact.

You can put LAT on cue and use it to warn your dog when something upsetting is coming. This is one of the most useful things about LAT. You can say "Look At That dog that just came around the corner!" and your dog can both see it before it comes too close and does the sudden appearance out of nowhere thing, and they have a rule structure for dealing with it. The CU_Dogs yahoo list is operating at the moment and it's freaking awesome. Leslie herself answers a lot of questions, and there are other very experienced trainers to offer their perspectives. The applications of LAT and other CU games are endless. You have to have read the books and/or watched the DVDs before you're allowed to post, though.

Sorry, had a reality check.

Really?? *narrows eyes at Kivi* You hear that, Kivi? No more than a corgi. Having lived with both a corgi and a lappie, it's a no-brainer to me that lappies shed more. Fewer guard hairs and less of the hair comes out without help, but we still have tumbleweeds and Kivi hairs turn up in the most unlikely places. The SV sheds about as much as the corgi did, and it's nothing compared to Kivi. Just not in the same league. I notice Erik's hair around the place, but I notice Kivi's a lot more. It's longer than mine! My first dog was a Pembroke. I wanted a dog to be my pal. She was perfect. I went through adolescence with her and she was my best friend. My second dog was a Finnish Lapphund. I found my corgi a wee bit clingy and intense for my liking. I wanted something smart, a little more independent, and laid back. I also had pet rabbits and an elderly corgi, so I wanted something gentle with little prey drive. Something moderately biddable, but not hugely active. Kivi Tarro has been everything I wanted plus a big dollop of pure sweetness. He is something special. When my corgi died OH wanted another corgi, but I didn't. My corgi had back problems and I didn't want to risk having to deal with that again. So we were looking for a smallish dog that needed about the same amount of exercise as Kivi. Kivi spends a lot of time in off leash parks, so we wanted a dog that would be all right off leash as well, and could stand up to Kivi's boisterous play style. My mum has a SV who I adore. OH likes him, too. He's not entirely typical of the breed, so we chatted to a breeder about them and eventually decided to go for it. I'm not really sure what I was expecting with a Vallhund. Something like a corgi but not. They are not really very much like corgis. Of a kind, but I like valls better. Because you can't take them for granted. And because they are CRAZY smart. And more agile. And less clingy. Says the girl with a Vallhund almost permanently draped over her legs. And they are FUN! And sometimes exasperating. There's nothing Erik won't try. Which is both cool and alarming, depending on what he's decided to try. It's a good thing he's cute as a button, because he can get up to serious mischief when understimulated, but you can't be angry with that "did I do good?" face, even when it's hovering over a $900 pair of binoculars he's been chewing on. He's my E. Whatever I was expecting it wasn't what I got, but I wouldn't trade what I've got for anything.

Dr Robert Stabler: http://www.stablerbehaviour.com.au/

About functional rewards and BAT: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffunctionalrewards.com%2FBAT-basics.pdf&rct=j&q=functional%20rewards&ei=_v4xTuyhMcmOmQXxqbTUDw&usg=AFQjCNHDhRC45i9sS2EFXg0BMPD17yFsog&cad=rja

It's psychology, PF. :p In all seriousness, you do the same thing you do in any other method you might choose to deal with resource guarding. You manage the situation until such time as they will voluntarily give the bone up. The use of functional rewards wouldn't be successful in any scenario if you were never able to progress beyond the initial stage. But it's not a rule set in stone that you never change. It's used like any other reward: to shape desirable behaviour.

I can attest to that. My family's whippet cross was once clipped by my corgi during a game and she tumbled into a lantana bush and tore her flank just behind the shoulder. It was pretty bad and needed stitches. My boys do things like that all the time, and worse, and they just get up and shake off the debris and keep going.