pgm

The correct sequence for teaching the sit for example: 1: press the ecollar (low level stim) 2: give the command 3: physically place dog in the sit position 4: when bum hits the ground take your finger off the button 5: praise the dog/give food reward Total duration of stim about 1 second. The stim from the ecollar is not a correction: negative reinforcement yes, but not a correction. The method is very simple and could be mastered by just about anyone with the proper instruction.

I would call that an example of active training. Actually, most of the discussions I have witnessed amongst trainers discussing theory has resulted in disagreeement and confusion. As I said, a lot can depend on how you describe what is going on - different descriptions lead to different interpretations. As I said before Amhailte's explanation of the terms is all you really need to know. Positive = adding something Negative = removing something Reinforcement = increasing behavior Punishment = decreasing behavior Write these on your hand if you have to sit an exam and you'll do fine.

No Erny, I have to disagree. Understanding removes the threat. So long as I know what the speed limit is and so long as I understand what a speed limit means (it means that if I don't obey I might get punished) there is no threat, real or imagined. This why, contrary to popular opinion, when a dog is taught using negative reinforcement (as an aspect of training) by somebody who knows what they are doing, the dog's confidence and attitude increases. The popular opinion has it that if you use aversives your dog will become a robot and just go through the motions but without any enjoyment in the constant fear of correction. Understanding removes the threat.

Akitagal, I agree with Amhailte, what you call something depends a lot on how you describe it. Which is one of reasons that I don't care much for these kinds of discussions, it doesn't matter. What matters is what works, find what works and call it what you like. Besides, it doesn't matter how I interpret what going on - what matters is how the dog interprets. People will disagree, fair enough, it makes for an interesting conversation. Mind you, I think Amhailte posted all anyone needs to know about operant conditioning. But what do you call the 'release' part of the equation?

I don't exactly know how you are using the check chain, but using it the way I use it to teach attention and heeling it is negative reinforcement, not punishment either negative or positive.

Actually, Erny, if there is one group of people that I would trust less than those 'qualified' with certificates it is those well meaning people who volunteer at obedience schools. Such people of course, do not deserve my criticism, they do after all voluntarily give up their time for the benefit of dogs. What I mean by experienced is an experienced professional, somebody who has made their living from training and working dogs for at least 10-15 years. Preferably someone who has proven experience working with agression issues. Ask the trainer how long he has been working for, ask if he has dealt with aggression issues and then ask him if he can supply you with a few references from people he has worked with. Any good trainer will be happy to supply you with those references. I trust those references more than any 'qualifications'. Give me a lucky soldier over a good soldier - Napolean Bonaparte.

Actually Erny, that would be the very least of my considerations when looking for a trainer. Personally, I wouldn't go near a behaviorist or anyone with 'qualifications' if they did not have years of hands on experience working with dogs and even then it would depend on how they work. Its the experience working with dogs that I would be looking for - Then again, I know its difficult finding a good trainer if you don't have experience yourself - getting a referral off someone you trust is probably the best bet.

If they are willing to come to hobart then I will of course be interested in attending. How many people approx will it require to make it worthwhile for them to come? If you could give an idea on this I could try and find some extra numbers.

Would she come to Hobart?

Erny, if the zing works and what you mean by 'works' is the same as what I mean by 'works' then that is fine, no problem. (given your previous explanation I suspect that 'works' is the same for you as it is for me). But still! I know my correction has worked insofar as I do not need to give another. Maybe you have given a correction and noticed that your dog has lossed some of it's drive, hence you give a lesser correction next time? (meaning a zing, without the zang?) Fair enough...I don't really have a problem.

Maybe. But still, like K9 I really don't understand the 'zing'. For all I know my own dog may well have paired the zing of the collar with a correction - doesn't matter. By the time he hears the zing it is too late, he's already been corrected. It is the notion of 'pairing' that confuses me - I don't want my dog to 'pair' or associate the zing with anything. The only pairing I want is - attention/absence of correction - lack of attention/correction. If you are saying that the zing IS the correction (which is what I suspect you are trying to say) then what need for 'pairing'? Pairing only seems to confuse the issue - or perhaps that is just me.....

Erny, the impression occurs when you say things such as: and: and: How does this pairing occur except for repeated repetitions? For the dog to associate the 'zing' with the correction requires repetition. If my dog on the other hand, only recieves one correction no such association can develop. Only though repetition can a dog 'pair' one thing with another...

Erny, I don't exactly follow your thinking. To my mind whether or not a correction is adequate depends not on whether the dog complies before the zing becomes a physical correction, but whether or not the dog complies (without any zing whatsoever) the next time the command is given. Put simply, if I have to give a correction more than once (whether it is a zing or physical correction) then that tells me that my first correction was inadequate. You seem to be relying on the 'zing' to get compliance, whereas I tend to think that compliance should come from the dog without any correction whatsoever. So long as you are relying on the 'zing' that suggests to me that your corrections are not adequate.

As soon as you have taken her out to relieve herself, put her back into the crate whilst you are dressing. If you don't have a crate get one, or otherwise make sure you are watching her closely so that you can step in the moment she starts and take her outside. Do not allow your dog to poop or relieve itself inside the house full stop. If you can't manage to watch her whilst you are dressing then leave the dog outside until you are dressed. It really isn't a big problem - you just have to manage it better.

Erny, I have used the check chain myself to train and have not used the 'zing method' as far as I am aware. The trouble with your above comments is the fact that you are still using the 'zing' to correct your dog. An adequate correction is a correction that no longer needs to be applied. If you are still correcting your dog your corrections are not adequate. The way a dog avoids correction is by doing the right thing. The correction should be paired with bad behavior, not a zing.

Not at all surprising, to say the least. But nonetheless frustrating to think that welfare org's such as RSPCA have the power to influence govt's concerning matters in which they have little knowledge or experience.

Why not? Then again, perhaps you can explain why the legislation describes prong collars as a collar with prongs designed to puncture and/or bruise the skin. The collars are manifestly not designed to puncture or bruise the skin, anymore than a check chain is designed to choke a dog. To say a check chain is designed to choke a dog is to show one's ignorance - to say the above about prong collars is likewise to show one's ignorance. Apart from ignorance can you SHOW any other reason why they are banned?

Alibear, I would put your dog on a lone line and make sure everytime you called you had the line in hand to reinforce the command. To my way of thinking the recall should just be a way of life, a fact of life like gravity. Don't give your dog the option of ignoring you.

Do you think that maybe some dogs are not comfortable with thinking and making decisions for themselves, hence do not respond as well to the clicker as others, especially those that have been introduced to the clicker as puppy's? It was my impression that it is the Alpha dog that makes all the decisions whereas the others follow. Maybe this explains why some dogs don't respond as well. Also why maybe dogs respond better if they are introduced as puppy's.

Compelling or just guiding? Why is using your hands to guide the dog into position, thus showing the dog what to do called compulsion? Think of ballet teacher using her hands to show a young child the correct placement of arms and legs - do we think of this as compulsion? For sure, some dogs will resist physical placement and in those cases I am happy to call it compulsion. But as the majority of dogs wont show much if any resistence to the handler using their hands to guide them into the correct position I am less happy to call that compulsion. In most cases it is simply showing the dog what to do by guiding it into position.

Are you kidding? I thought you said that you read the book? What, have you really forgotten everything before page 175? Page 67: "Nevertheless, continue to follow through with the mechanics of placing each time you stop, for to risk failure of response before it is time to correct the dog for not obeying your single command is to do damage." If you have been reading and following instructions (which obviously excludes yourself and Rusky and many others) you will have placed the dog approx 200 times over four days, with praise being given after each and every repetition, before you are in a position to apply a correction - and only then assuming your dog fails to comply. If I knew for a fact that NOTHING would correct the problem then the answer is no. But what this has got to do with anything I don't know... Why not go further and ask me what Koehler would advise for someone in a coma who had an out of control dog? I mean please - can you get any sillier? Fancy leaving your dog out in the back garden for an hour or so by themselves...oh, the cruelty, the inhumanity of it all...!!!! I doubt that very much given your inability to read. I doubt very much whether you have ever used Koehler as INSTRUCTED. Either that or you have suddenly become senile and forgotten everything. Just because you may have used a check chain or seen others using a check chain does not mean that you were using Koehler.

m-j The section you mention regarding housetraining is contained at the back of the book in the small section titled 'Problems'. There are 174 pages preceding this section. There is also five paragraphs on housetraining which is almost identical to the advice given today before any mention is made of dealing with those dogs that do not respond to normal housebreaking methods. These methods are preceded by the advice given in the introduction that only in exteme cases as a 'last resort' should these methods be employed. They are also preceded with the advice that the dog should be taken through the ten week course BEFORE addressing these problems. Koehler knew as well as everybody else that many of these issues stem from boredom which are easily solved through physical and mental exercise - namely training, which provides both. Why you and others are drawn to this small section of the book, which is preceded by the advice that only after the training has been completed and only in extreme cases, where the only other alternative is to be pts, one can only guess. What I do know however, is only someone who has failed to read the preceding 174 pages would think that Koehler puts the emphasis on reprimand rather than on praise. Those of us who have indeed read the first 174 pages and followed the advice know better. As to your charge of anthropomorphism I notice that like most people you use it when it suits you. So on one hand, a dog is incapable of doing something 'out of revenge', yet in the very next paragraph you say - So on one hand, the dog is not capable of 'cunning' (peeing out of spite) and yet on the other hand he IS capable of 'cunning'? Maybe it's because the mere mention of reprimand turns such people's minds to mush rendering them incapable of reading and understanding something IN CONTEXT.

Yes. I am somewhere in Australia, and you should go to bed...

Yes, that is what I mean. And it is the first thing the trainer does. Here is an example. Press the ecollar and hold it down (low level stim) and at the same time say 'sit' whilst simultaneously placing the dog in a sit, as soon as the dog's bum hits the ground take your finger off the button (whole thing takes less than a second). Half dozen reps, the dog will be sitting on its own accord as it will have figured out that sitting turns off the ecollar. Every exercise is taught in a similar fashion.

Ecollar - electronic dog collar used for training.