malsrock

Very good explanation Cosmolo, spot on Fiona

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years. Are you saying Aidan, that the use of a check chain prevented the light's coming on with the dog you mentioned as an example, or did you feel that using an alternate tool or method would achieve a better result...........just interested to hear you thoughts on this. I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective. Fiona

So that trainer was "incompetent"? OK, so we're in agreement. So why would you draw conclusions about what training method is best or what anyone else should do based on an example of an incompetent trainer? That would be like me saying "check chains are bad, I had a client who was using a check chain under instruction from someone else for months and got nowhere and in the first lesson with me it was like a light-switch went on" (and for the record, I have examples like quite regularly). Just so we're clear, I'm not replying for your benefit but for anyone who might be reading this. I know we've already had this discussion "Fiona" Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

I think that with my girl sometimes, the consequence of losing something is far worse for her than the consequence of getting a correction. If she really wants the tug, she does not deal well with losing the chance to get it. Same with downing before we start tracking, she learned pretty quickly that dogs that don't down, don't track. So sometimes I think, if you can control the dog's access to the reinforcer (which is quite often true in daily life), then that can be a more powerful & memorable consequence for the dog than correcting the dog. My Mal doesn't want to do anything much without showing him what's on offer first Fiona

In that case the examples you used did not fit your definition either. How do you know that other methods are slower? And slower at what exactly? Achieving something in the first 5 minutes, or over the life of the dog? Yes, my example did fit my definition of competence..........a trainer persevered with a method for a particular dog unseccessfully for 6 months which I corrected in less than a week. The only difference was, the trainer wouldn't administer an aversive method and I did. The trainer should have had the competence to understand that the methods used didn't work with the wisdom to try something else. Fiona

I think a lot of people have trouble believing that the above is not necessarily true until they have seen someone do otherwise effectively. Dogs do weigh up reinforcers based on their value, but this does not always determine their behaviour if they are conditioned to emit one response over another (by someone competent). Whether we would choose to do that without corrections is another matter entirely, but what appears to be common sense is not always that simple. Agree What is the big deal these days with giving a dog a correction so it regains focus (not to be confused with a punishment) some dogs i would never fit a prong collar it is simply not needed. It would do more harm than good but as somebody has stated in this thread that it has changed a dogs behaviour for the better than to have it simply put down what is the better option putting it to sleep or giving the owner a tool that works when all other approaches have failed. Another thing I would like to add is that a lot of dogs these days are bred with week temperaments if a dog goes to water after a small correction in my book it has a week temperament and at the end of the day could possibly in a certain circumstances turn into a fear biter. Dogs are that dogs a correction that they understand is not doing a dog with the proper temperament any harm. Coz you can't call yourself a positive trainer then.........you'r just a big meanie

I think a lot of people have trouble believing that the above is not necessarily true until they have seen someone do otherwise effectively. Dogs do weigh up reinforcers based on their value, but this does not always determine their behaviour if they are conditioned to emit one response over another (by someone competent). Whether we would choose to do that without corrections is another matter entirely, but what appears to be common sense is not always that simple. Doesn't the "otherwise" Aidan, only prevent the dog from learning there a consequences to it's actions good and bad. I remember some misbehaviours as a kid would earn me a smack on the bum, and others would cause a loss of my lollies, but I can sure remember the correction that provided the best reinforcer..........shouldn't that system also apply to dogs??? Fiona

You don't seem to be making the distinction between "competence" and "incompetence". The dogs who come to me have seen someone else first, and in many cases they have been to an obedience club or breed club who uses the methods you describe. I only take referrals from other trainers or veterinary behaviourists, so in every case someone who is competent at whatever they do has referred that person to me as someone competent at what I do. We could trade examples going back and forth all day but that would achieve nothing other than further evidence that people can become competent using different methods, and I already knew that. I did actually explain my definition of competence in my previous post Fiona

Correct, I totally agree. Common sense to me is applying a tool or method to correct and condition the behaviour has fast as possible and get the job done. I wouldn't argue that the same result cannot be achieved using a different method, but if it takes longer to achieve, that to me is not a common sense approach. Fiona

Some dogs should be PTS, but assuming these dogs were not in that category (and I'm not sure that you are in a position to judge this) then those trainers were incompetent and should refer. They are not representative of every "purely positive" trainer in the world. Putting all the divisive "us and them" political nonsense aside, a competent trainer is one who can solve that client's problem. That's it. Competent defines itself to a large extent and doesn't need sub-cultures to add their bit. I think I could train dogs for another 100 years and still not train "enough" dogs, or at least someone would be able to level that criticism at me and what defence could I put up? There is always a new and different dog around the corner, and perhaps more relevant - new and different clients with new and different needs. This point is driven home when you actually train someone else's dog and not just a string of your own dogs, for which the point of difference is mostly in the dog because you stay more or less the same. It is, in fact, impossible not to use aversives with fearful or aggressive dogs. They wouldn't be that way if there wasn't some aversive stimulus in the environment. But putting that aside, I have not used a prong collar, check chain, e-collar or otherwise on an aggressive dog in one of my classes simply because they do not fit with what I do in classes and what I do consistently works and has done with a statistically significant sample. There are very few exceptions, and these are dogs for whom either classes aren't the best environment or the owner is grossly non-compliant. No doubt there are purely positive trainers who could work even with these clients, but I am not that patient nor do I see the benefit in being purely positive for the sake of it. The point I am making refers to this model Aidan: A lady with a large dog that pulls on leash, she has been to training and hired trainers to help with the probelm which is not being resolved. The dog has a head collar or harness on, she is equipped with a treat pouch and clicker, sometimes the dog walks nicely and things are working to a degree, but when a distraction occurs, the dog is all over place in misbehaviour. The lady has spent a lot of money and time training in this method with maginal result. In assistance, I have taken the head collar/harness etc off the dog, and in some instances used only a flat collar and leash, done a few routines and a few corrections and in less than an hour, dramatically improved the dog's on leash behaviour out of sight???. This is not an over embellishment on my part, but as just an amateur trainer with experience with my own dogs, I have assisted people in this fashion over the years many times. The loose leash situation as I present in this model, I am thinking considering the lady has been under professional trainers for 6 months, what the hell are they teaching when an amateur like me can greatly improve the dog's behaviour in less than an hour, and completely resolve the problem under my instruction in less than a week

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I. The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines. We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???. Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me Fiona ;) But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles. This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective? Annual: Companion® C3 Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles Trienniel: Nobivac® DHP Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges? Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money! To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died. So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that. As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer. Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no. Thanks for the info Stormie, much appreciated ;) My concern with the registered triennial was to ensure that the vaccination wasn't a "hot shot" lacing my dog with a big dose on the basis that a heavy dose of vaccine will last longer because the triennial protocol I didn't understand it meaning double dosing for a longer interval between vaccinations which the registered triennial does give that impression. I would like to know why the registered triennial is a different formulation with a higher particle percentage for what reason given that the same companies annual formulation is different???. Personally, I wouldn't do a registered triennial yet, until these questions could be answered as an altered formulation doesn't make sense to me, neither does the registered triennial having a different parvo strain added.........what???, their annual is then not providing proper protection Fiona ;)

Yes, there definitely is a commercial issue that could be a consideration for some vets as to their recommendations. I know several people who have told me that if the triennial became main stream, they would drop the annual check up altogther, other than the dog becomming ill, would visit the vet on a 3 yearly basis only. Not everyone is concerned with kennel cough and having their dog's temperature taken and their mouth looked at which apart from the annual vaccination is all that is checked basically. From a vets perspective financially, a triennial does have the potential to create a commercial loss. I guess a vet pushing to retain annual's as their protocol, you would have to consider if their motives are more commercially based. Fiona

I don't think your post targets my point (not your fault ...... remember, I have been "accountancied" today, LOL). I agree that a Vet would have the right and I expect the obligation to not give the "registered 3-year vaccine" any more than 3 years. Just as I'd expect the Vet to have the right and obligation to not give the registered annual vaccine any more than once in a year. I get that and would expect nothing less (and would be horrified if the Vet over-vaccinated beyond manufacturer's label). What if I refused to allow my Vet to give annual boosters to my dog (who was previously vaccinated with the "12 month" vaccine) and a couple of years went by. I then went in and asked my Vet to give my dog a 12 month booster. From what you've said in an earlier post, are you saying that because the manufacturer's label says "annually" that the Vet could somehow carry the risk of a liable suit should something go wrong, because the Vet was not vaccinating the dog in accordance with the label? IE Gave the booster on the 3rd (or whatever) year rather than the following consecutive year. I just can't see how this could be the case if it was the owner who had refused the vaccine on an annual basis. Also, what law suit if the Vet refused to vaccinate (booster) the dog at the client's request? Our vaccination cards have the vaccination date and the next one due 12 months later maked down by the vet. If you didn't take the dog back for 3 years and missed two annuals, the owner is who ignored the vets advice. If the vet did a 12 month vaccination off label and marked in the card that the next one due was 3 years later and the dog got sick in the meantime, then the vet could be liable in that case. What annoys me with this situation trying to have an intelligent discussion with the vet about the vaccination schedule, I am not asking them to read to me what's written on the vaccination packet, I am asking them for their opinion on the latest vaccination protocol in the best interests of my dog's health Fiona :p

But I think Aidan's point, is that if he was what you would class as a purely positive trainer, and his methods always worked, he never had issues with how he trained, never had a dog he couldn't fix etc then why would he be any better a trainer if he decided to use certain aversives? Why would he change what he is doing, if it works for him? Aidan is not talking about the bad PP trainers but the ones who are getting results. I am by no means a PP trainer myself BTW but I do get where Aidan is coming from. Who are we to say he would be a better trainer if he used certain aversives? I would think If Aidan believed that, he hasn't successfully trained enough challenging dogs................hypothetically this is Aidan, no offence here mate Fiona

What theory is that? The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods. Fiona I'm not sure that I've ever heard a competent purely positive trainer state that any of these things will inevitably happen. I think that's the difference, whether someone is competent or not. Method then becomes a moot point. If you're competent, you're competent; if you're not, you refer and get your ego out of it. If I'm "purely positive" (not that I make this claim, although in many eyes I would be) and get consistently good results with the dogs that I work with, what basis would I have to choose a "wider range of methods"? Similarly, what basis would someone have to tell Steve Courtenay that he shouldn't have used a prong with the dog in this thread? As for the theory, the actual theory - which is not something that "purely positive" trainers came up with - is sound. Aversives do have fall-out, they do come with risk. The severity of the correction is just one factor. One of the most insidious problems caused by aversive conditioning, learned helplessness, can be caused by the use of very mild aversives and can be hard to identify or even to link with the events that caused it. But mostly we're just dealing with classical conditioning, which is certainly not limited to extreme cases. Competent trainers have evolved different methods of avoiding the fall-out of aversives in dog training and behaviour modification, whether one method is any better than another is not a debate I care to enter into here. Suffice to say there is more than one method that works and avoids serious problems. Personally Aidan, I don't regard "purely positive" trainers who refuse to train in aversive methods as competent at all from my own experience, too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS These particular trainers I speak of were staunch in their "purely positive" techniques promoting the theories that I described. IMHO, positive is good, aversives are good and training competence boils down to the trainers who are good enough to determine a method of training that can actually correct the dog's behaviour and are prepared to use a variety of methods with the ultimate goal to produce a result. Fallout from aversive methods from my experience results from trainers who are inexperienced at administering a properly timed aversive correctly and blame the method it's self for the resultant fallout they caused themselves. I couldn't see too much fallout from the OP's experience using a prong collar in fact, it was quite the opposite from what I could see Fiona :p

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I. The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines. We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???. Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me Fiona

you're talking about bitework which has some difference to teaching something like pure obedience in prey. You dont want to flip a pup out of prey too early unless they are ready for it. Now you are dealing with more then a dog chasing a sleeve in prey, we're wanting a dog to stand its ground and try and actively fight the decoy. Push that too hard too fast you break the dog. When I said pressure I dont mean it in a purely negative way. All heightened reaction places some type of pressure on the dog. Thats how they learn. How they then deal with that pressure comes down to genetics and training I dont agree with this either I was using bitework as an example, but more to highlight my understanding of pressure created by different drives in regard to nerve strength. I read something Helmut Raiser wrote about his belief that working a dog in prey drive doesn't pressure the dog as it's reacting from a pleasure stimulus. It went on to say that creating fighting drive from prey drive is more desirable that creating fighting drive from defence as it doesn't place the pressure on the dog that working in defence does and doesn't require the genetic nerve strength for the dog to cope. I understood it as meaning that nerve strength was not a required trait when a dog was reacting from a prey driven effect???. In other words there would be no difference between the actions of a thick or thin nerved dog when working in prey drive???. Fiona

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway. In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test. Is that what you're asking? Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots. Fiona

Many dog's have been saved from a premature trip to the bridge thanks to the prong collar

I can only speak directly of the pitbull - it's the only one of the banned breeds I've had experience with - so I can't answer your questions as to the other breeds. But I would say that the pitbull is on the banned list, although we both agree it should not be. And did you know that the GSD went through a period of being banned in Aussie? And I think we could both agree that is silly. So to me those two cases are sufficient evidence to make me suspicious that the other breed bans are also not based on fact, but merely based on media & government panic over the lastest "bad" breed. I certainly haven't seen any real evidence that these other dogs are inherently more dangerous than other dogs, even if properly raised & handled - only hearsay & propaganda. I am not sure about the other listed breeds and I think if the truth be known regarding the APBT, the majority featuring in bite statistics are likely Bull cross breeds of some description more so than genuine APBT's??? The GSD banning had a couple of stories attached to that mostly on a scare basis I remember. They were assumed to be part wolf was one version and the other was the assumption that people would cross them with dingos to breed a super dog that would kill livestock. I don't remember that GSD's actually did much to cause a banning, it was the perception of what they may do frrom the result of over-active imaginations. Fiona

Hmmm, I'm not sure. If someone could prove that one breed was significantly more likely to cause injury or harm to humans, even if trained, socialised correctly, & owned by a responsible owner, I'd be happy to see restrictions on people owning it. Of course, like all legislation, this would do nothing if the council & government did not actually enforce it. But my issue with BSL is that people have not proven anything of the sort, and they're still banning breeds just because they look nasty or because everyone just "knows" they are dangerous. I think the breeds BSL listed are a fairly standard list for many countries around the world. I don't think Australia has actually formed a list on the basis of their own findings and experiences. Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???. I can't imagine the same or similar breeds were pulled from a hat in so many different countries just for the hell of it I did read about one of the restricted breeds that scores points in a show for trying to bite the judge Do we really know the levels of genetic violence these breeds exhibit and the difficulty in containing and handling them???. I was warned off purchasing a Dutch Shepherd with a high level of genetic civil drive considered not experienced enough to handle that type of dog although I had nearly 20 years experience owning, training and handling working line GSD's, so if some of these restricted breeds are said to make a highly driven working dog look like pussy cats in comparison, I would wonder the level of experience required for some one to safely own and handle them??? I am not referring to the APBT's which I don't think should be listed at all, but the other breeds we basically don't see in Australia I am referring to. Fiona

What theory is that? The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods. Fiona

Whether that's right or not .... I'll leave to those who 'know'. BUT - I cannot see how, if a dog's owner refuses to allow a vet to administer a vaccine, the Vet could be liable. Apart from that - it sounds to me that what your Vet is telling you is that they might agree that over-vaccination is occurring but they can't condone anything less than annual vaccination. Not because of the dog's well-being as the priority, but because of the potential law-suit. I did have the impression that "cover thy backside" was their priority Erny

What did your Vet have to say about the Vaccines that are available that are registered for 3yr use??? I didn't ask about the registered 3 yearly vaccine, but I had the impression that the 3 yearly vaccine was a "hot shot" or high dose vaccine which I thought defeated the purpose a bit. The 3 year protocol from my understanding was to use the normal yearly vaccination strength at 3 year intervals???. Fiona

Why is it you think pitbulls cant guard?Like I would beleive anything this moron claims maybe in his dreams.I dont promote pitbulls as guard dogs and many arent.In fact more arent than are but the good ones are as good as anything else.Its all about the dog not the breed.If you have seen a good one then you will know what I mean they will bring it as hard and fast as anything else on four legs. APBT's have been tested a few times against Rottweilers and GSD's in protection and don't come close in defence against humans, neither are they clear headed enough in defence drive to train them as effectively. APBT's are not by any means the toughest dog's on the block to guard against human intervention as some think they are. Personally, I would use a good Rottweiler to train as manstopper to prevent entry into premises for the best potential. Fiona