pgm

I don't about other clubs, but I do know that at the club I use to frequent the problem was precisely a lack of any coherent method. The problem is that of twenty people in class, ten will turn up with their dogs on flat collars, five with harnesses of some sort of another, a couple with slip collars, and few with checks chains. Some will have food, some will have toys and some will have nothing. How is possible for one instructor to teach a class in any coherent or useful way with so many different tools and/or methods? The answer is that it is not. Usually the training is so general as to be useless. Far better to give the instructors the opportunity to teach a specific method and to divide the classes along the lines of the different methods, so that the handlers would all be on the same page in regards to the methods used. Of course, that would introduce competition between instructors and the different methods, with the best instructors and/or best methods gaining the most students. Alas, one suspects that such professionalism is against the ethos of many dog clubs run by volunteers

But this is precisely the kind of socialisation that I am referring to. A well socialised dog knows not to run up to other strange dogs. How many times have I heard people tell me not to worry about their dog running up to mine because "ïts only being friendly". Neither the owner nor their dog understand what good dog manners consists of. As you said, many dogs don't like strange dogs running up to them regardless of whether they are being friendly or not - a well socialised dog understands this and behaves accordingly. No different from her approach - I presume you don't employ the dog until it reaches maturity because lack of maturity can create problems in unpredictable situations. Again I can't see any difference - apart from the neutralisation. No it isn't. I can't say that based on experience, but I can say that I know of at least half dozen Koehler trainers on a different list (all with over 30-40years experience) that will strongly disagree. Indeed, the whole purpose of the method is developing self-control in the dog, so that it will behave correctly (according to right action) without constant supervision or command. I believe many people do not see or understand this aspect because of their misunderstanding of complusion. Every Koehler trainer that I have ever read on the other hand speaks of the method in precisely the terms of development of self control and autonomy in the dog. And they speak glowingly in terms of a well trained dog having the maturity to disobey a command when the situation demands it. Like the police dog taken to a crime scene only to bite the victim - a terrible mistake. A week later they found out the so called victim was in fact the perpetrator. I can only tell you the way these trainers speak - and they speak about the method and its results in exactly the opposite manner to the above. I presume that this situation rarely if ever occurs under your supervision. I imagine you would say it doesn't occur because you are able to read the dogs body language and intervene before a fight escalates. I believe you - have no reason to doubt your word. As she has been doing it for forty years I see no reason to doubt her either. As to believing her, I know her from a dog training list that I read where she is well respected by many experienced trainers who have met and worked with her over many years. I believe her for the same reason I believe you - most of what you say makes good sense to me. I just don't follow you on the neutralisation. Of course, I agree that you shouldn't let your dogs run free unsupervised in an uncontrolled enviroment. My point regarding sheepdog trainers was not that they allow their dogs to run free unsupervised - but that the highly rewarding and valuable (to the dogs) activity of chasing and herding sheep does not compromise reliability, so long as the trainer maintains control.

I have only your word and her word to go on, and as I don't have any reason to doubt either of you I would find it surprising if either of your or her dogs were any less reliable than you both claim. She is a well respected dog trainer with many years experienced of whom I have often heard high praise from other dog trainers. I have no reason to doubt either of you. I find this a surprising comment. Almost all dogs are kept with littermates until eight weeks old, yet given the absence of social skills that you find in many, many dogs (think of a dog park) it would seem to me that reinforcement of good manners is essential. All meetings between her dogs and the dogs that come in for daycare and boarding are controlled (supervised) by her. Putting aside the catching part, I can think of many reasons why a sheepdog trainer would allow his dog to chase and herd sheep. Sheep are I imagine pretty high value for a sheepdog, yet a properly trained sheepdog has no difficulty in ignoring sheep and obeying his handler should the trainer wish, even with sheep around. Reading a highly experienced sheepdog trainer I was surprised to learn that sheepdogs are mostly kept offlead at sheepdog dog trials and never run on to the course (with sheep) unless directed. Could you clarify what you mean by maturity aside? It can be yes - but her dogs are expected to be reliable in any situation (inside or outside the ring) by two years of age. All of her dogs have a UD by the time they reach 2 years of age (although the Chows she trained took 2 1/2 years apparently.) I might be wrong, but I think even amongst people who train exclusively for competition (which she doesn't) having a UD by two years of age is pretty quick. I don't know what you mean by that statement. Even dogs trained exclusively for obedience trialling require drive in order to compete successfully at utility level. The above might result in a compliant dog - but I can't see it working for a dog you want competing at utility level. Besides, her dogs are specifically chosen for their high working drive - it wouldn't make much sense for her to then beat the drive out of the dog. She wants a highly driven dog that will be relaxed and good mannered when she requires it as well as having plenty of get up and go when that is required. I understand what you mean by neutralization - I can see that it would work to get reliability - but my feelings do not go in this way.

sorry lablover, but I don't understand your problem either. This is a highly active, highly driven 9 month old doberman bitch (her dogs are specifically chosen for their working drive). So it misbehaves? And she posts such episodes? I very much doubt that her 8 year doberman bitch has even thought about raiding the flowergarden for many years and yet has just as much opportunity to do so. The link was posted in case anyone was interested - if you don't like it, disagree with it, or don't believe it that's fine. On the other hand, you could always post her a question - she would be more than happy to answer.

K9, not wishing to challenge your experience but I find this whole discussion interesting given your different approach to other trainers I know of. Here is a training log of a very experienced American trainer who trains all of her dogs from puppy's in a yard full of other dogs. She runs a day care and B&T facility. Now if you asked her she would tell you it takes two years to get a really well trained reliable dog (up to service dog standards - or utility obedience standard). She would also tell you that raising her dog amongst other dogs is crucial for their development in terms of teaching the dogs proper manners around other dogs and people. I would be surprised if her dogs are less reliable than yours, given that they are trained as service dogs and go wherever she goes. I guess the difference as far as I can tell is that you seem to expect your dogs to be 100% reliable to command whereas she expects reliability and good manners without the need for constant supervision or commands. I could just be reading your posts the wrong way, but that seems to me to be the difference. Pity you can't have a discussion with her - the differences in approach intrigue me. Her weblog is here for anyone who might be interested: www.sanityshome.blogspot.com

The check chain is a training tool, it is useless, even counterproductive, as a restraint. As a training tool, used correctly, it is excellent. As a restraining device - useless.

Depending on how you teach and assuming your dog is heeling well on lead this is how I do it. I have a very light piece of rope attached to my belt which I run through his collar. I then attached the normal six foot lead and do a couple of minutes heeling on lead to get his attention. Once he is working well I then remove the leash making sure he sees me doing it and then it throw away - once again, making sure he sees me doing this. Then I say heel and continue on - if you are lucky he will have forgotten about the extra piece of rope attached and lose concentration. He will then get caught by surprise. Keep doing this gradually increasing the distraction until you can no longer catch him out or fool him. Catching him by surprise is what helps to increase his concentration and focus. Of course, there are other ways to do it - I think it depends a lot on what you have done before and you usual method of training.

Koehler Method of Dog Training. A practical step by step guide to train your dog - perfect for competitive obedience. Takes you through day by day until the end. Most comprehensive method for training your dog I have seen. Can get second hand copies through amazon, or else check out your local library for a copy.

Herr Rottweiler, that is a handy idea for my next dog, I will keep it in mind. As I said in my last post, I simply left him in the crate if I had to go out for any length of time - which was no more than an hour or two.

What i am not understanding Erny is if I train my pup to refrain from chewing by conditioning him to the word 'no' how does that teach him not to chew things when I am not around? Sure, when he was a pup I left him in the crate when out until such time as I felt he could be trusted - but sooner or later I have to trust that he wont wreck the house when I am out. How does conditioning him to the word 'no' help in this regard?

still don't get it. my dog chews whatever he is allowed to chew, and refrains from chewing what he is not allowed to chew. As for planning ahead, I thought that is what training is all about - I can hardly smear vicks vapor rub all over a couple of bookcases full of books. Training him not to chew certain things allows me to give him the run of the house (with back door open) whilst I am out, which he prefers.

sorry to get technical, but I don't really understand the part about rewarding the dog after he has stopped chewing, whether its immediately after, or whether it ten seconds or so after. I mean stopping my dog from chewing is not about teaching a behavior its about extinguishing behavior. Some of you are talking about conditioning the word 'no', so as you can use the word to stop certain unwanted behaviors - why? What happens when you are not around to say 'no'? Of course, having the word 'no' is handy for many things - I just don't understand why you would want it in this particular situation when what you want to do is to extinguish behavior rather than teach.

personally, I would simply use an OUT correction. This involves yelling OUT at the top of your lungs and then immediately ignoring the dog. This will scare the dog - it is meant to. I have used this method to stop a number of behaviors such as chewing with no ill effects. If done correctly I can't see the problem. The answer btw, to stopping your dog from running away is to simply put a lead on the dog and allow him/her to drag it around the house. Get a light piece of rope for instance if the lead is too heavy or cumbersome. Also, btw, I wouldn't grab the pup as I don't want to associate the correction with me. At no stage would I give eye contact to the dog - I simply yell OUT and immediately walk off.

Why? A good method will produce visible results immediately. The quicker those results are seen the more likely people will be encouraged to train more and put in the extra work. Just ask a professional trainer such as K9 Force, a dog can be taught to walk on a loose lead within five to ten minutes with a good method. Seeing those kind of results encourages people to put in the work to make good behavior a habit. Getting good results quickly make the whole experience rewarding and a whole lot more fun than getting little result. Of course, you have to put in the work, but seeing significant improvement quickly is a great motivator towards encouraging the extra effort.

Sidoney, interesting post, and one that I agree with. It highlights the essential aspect of behaviorism that is most flawed: its failure to take the internal states of cognition and emotion into account. Essentially, it takes an external viewpoint to the dog and completely leaves out the most important element: the internal relationship between the trainer and dog. Another way to put to it is that it ignores and/or dismisses the social relationship between trainer and dog. As I myself use a traditional method of training it is a subject that always gets me going for the reason that behaviorists have always been inclined to dismiss traditional trainers as overly sentimental and naive. This is precisely because of the language that such trainers use to describe the process of training. What behaviorists (and those influenced by them) fail to appreciate is that the language used by traditional trainers (often dismissed as anthropocentric) is spoken from within an internal perspective concerning the training relationship between trainer and dog. Behaviorism views this relationship from an external perspective and hence dismisses the language of traditional animal trainers as sentimental and/or naive. The idea that animals think and have emotions and that these factors have a huge bearing on training is something that animal trainers have instinctively known for thousands of years. Check out Xenophon's Art of Horsemanship for an ancient example. I must admit it gets up my goat whenever people unthinkingly accept science as being cutting edge just because it is science. The idea that we know so much more about animals and training them now is laughable in face of the fact that the role of cognition and emotions in training is a relatively new idea in science. Had scientists consulted and taken seriously those that spent their lives working and training animals we might have avoided the farce of behaviorism and the nonsense that is still being preached in its name.