pgm

If you are thinking of using a check chain, can I suggest you get a copy of the Koehler Method of Dog Training. It has a step by step method that will work on just about any dog, regardless of breed or age. If the method is followed correctly you will have your dog walking on a loose lead within the first or second session. There is no yanking or pulling on the check chain with this method. Try it, you'll be surprised at its effectiveness.

Paddles: the way you were taught is unfortunate. I am not surprised that you ended up with an unhappy dog. A dog should never be corrected until AFTER it has been established that it understands the command. There are some very good old methods, but the one you were taught does not sound like one of them.

EddyAnne: "The vast majority at training club leave when they have obtained what they wanted, that is to go for a walk down the street with their dogs on-lead without their dogs pulling and misbehaving." pgm: I don't believe that. I know that is a common assumption and not one that I can disprove but I nevetheless remain unconvinced. But even if that were true, I am inclined to believe that a far greater percentage would progress to more advanced levels if they were given a better chance of achieving it. One does not need to have an interest in trialing to see the benefits of having well trained dog - surely? As such, unless the individual is self-motivated and has the advantage of proper methods (hence is able to ignore the instruction) they have very little chance to progress.

EddyAnne: "Maybe the doggies have been conditioned to a years worth of training on-lead and where the leads gave a subtle que here and there to the doggies on what to do." pgm: the trouble is there is nothing subtle about it. Right from the beginning the instructors have instructed the handlers to be constantly talking to the dog and guiding them around on their turns. During a right about turn for instance the instructors intruct the handlers to gently guide the dog around USING the leash and encouraging them with voice commands of 'heel, heel'. It just baffles me no end how the instructors think that the students have any hope of passing an exam in which all such help and encouragment is penalized. As I said, most of the dogs are still incapable of even walking on loose leash without the constant encouragment and help. The instructors are setting the students up for failure. As I said, it just baffles me. What doesn't baffle me is that the vast majority of dogs that enter at the level of beginner never progress beyond level two and simply drop out. That seems (at least to me) to be the most obvious result imaginable given their instruction.

Kavik: "Competition heeling is not at all practical, as you want total focus the whole time." pgm: the dog knows the difference, even without you doing anything (noticably)different the dog is more than capable of picking up the difference in context. One will lose nothing by teaching their dog to heel correctly (competition style) and possibly gain much more than they might otherwise. Kavik: "Pet training classes often work on teaching the dog to be relaxed and calm, while in competition you want focus and energy and quick responses." pgm: I don't know about other obedience clubs but the biggest problem I have with my own is that they don't teach the handlers how to get the dogs to heel properly. Hence when it comes to exams to go to the next level nobody passes. Today for instance I sat for an exam the equivalent of novice and out of a class of twenty was the only one to pass. Forget about heeling offlead, nobody could even get their dog to heel on a loose leash. Some of these people have been attending this club with their dog for the past 12 months and are still to even have their dog work on a loose leash. I blame the lack of proper instuction for this. You wont lose anything by teaching the dog right from the beginning how to heel correctly for competition. Then even if you don't wish to compete you will still have an excellently trained dog - or at the very least better than you might if you start off with just a pet mentality.

SpikesPuppy, as you know Innotek has offices here in Australia. Look up google for their Australian website and maybe email them asking for advice on how to go about getting it back from customs. I am sure they would not take kindly to one of their own products that they sell legally here in Australia being described as a "device of cruelty". Or maybe you could phone them, they have an office in Qld. They are quite helpful - give it a go, they may be able to offer some suggestions. good luck......

whitewolf: I do not recommend putting the collar on and off as you suggested. This runs the risk of the dog becoming collar wise - barking when the collar is off, remaining quiet when it is on. I know this has not been the case in your example, but I suspect this is more good fortune than good management. The collar should be put on whenever the dog is left alone or at times when it is prone to bark. Don't wait until the dog starts barking and then put in on - put it on before the dog starts barking. Of course, one should never leave the collar on for more than about eight hours a day and you should regularly check the dog's neck to make sure the collar is not causing skin irritation.

I would recommend the electronic bark collar. If you want more info, check out this site: www.k9force.net Look up the training articles. I think electronic bark collars are allowed in most states, but don't take my work on that.

ElectraWoman: However - would you be comfortable with a trainer, or a training centre, that advocates the use of check chains as the primary training tool? pgm: I would be very comfortable, so long as I was assured the trainer used them correctly. But you seem to be under a misapprehension - a correction collar is just that - if the dog never pulls he never recieves a correction. Hence it would make no difference what collar he was wearing.

Lovemydogs, you must believe in what you are doing, otherwise that uncertainty will transfer itself to the dog. You will end up making it worse. I would watch a training session before I committed to any trainer. Speak to the trainer and ask them to explain their methods. Check chains can be very effective, but like any tool, pretty much useless if used incorrectly. And if you use the tool (in this case the check chain) without conviction and belief in what you are doing, then your problems may get worse. If you can't commit to the method, then find one that you can. No method can produce good results without the commitment of the handler. One final word, the fact that your dog is a rescue is irrelevent - your commitment and belief is far more influential towards getting good results.

Vehs: If a dog isn't food motivated then that's that. I started to have problems with Dieter when I stopped bringing tidbits on our walks.. he would only work if he knew the food was there. pgm: I am inclined to say that your dog is very food motivated. He seems to have learnt exactly what you have taught him - do what I say and I will give you this. If you haven't got any of 'this', he (in my opinion) is quite entitled to decline the offer to work. Others might say that you failed to teach correctly - I can't comment on that. Though I am sympathetic to your plight.

Lia: the higher a distraction, the better the treat needs to be until the dog learns to ignore the distraction. pgm: I have no doubt that is true Lia. But that is what I am questioning - the dog is being taught to work according to the reward. I don't btw, use treats, so I don't have this problem.

you know I am really not trying to start arguments, but I do find myself genuinely curious as to the different ways in which people think about dog training. For instance I find the idea of dogs becoming bored with certain treats to be very curious. Of course, it is true that my dog, I assume like most dogs, becomes bored during certain stages of training. My response however, is always to increase the difficulty - adding stronger distractions and so forth. This I find works unfailingly in terms of increasing his attitude and motivation. But I simply do not understand the idea of motivating your dog by changing to more rewarding food 'rewards'. What is this teaching the dog? - other than to work according to the reward on offer?

PoodleFan: To me the handler always retains responsiblity for cueing the dog at the right time and in a way that allows the dog to perform at its best. pgm: I agree. And agree to disagree on the rest.

PoodleFan: I look first to the HANDLER to see if that is where the error lies whereas your approach is to place the responsiblity for non-performance on the dog. pgm: I see the whole point of training as a gradual passing of responsibility from handler to dog. I am not interested in controlling the dog - I am interested in teaching the dog self-control. As to where the error lies, of course one should look first of all to the handler. But you seem unwilling to EVER place the responsibility with the dog. I can only go by the description that has been offered - "My instructor told me to practice with a fence or something behind me but he seems to love showing off in front of the class because whenever we practice alone he is always perfect." 'Whenever we practice alone he is always perfect', suggests to me that the dog is perfectly aware of what is required. A correction is simply informing the dog (not punishing) that yes, even here in front of everbody, you are still required to perform correctly. PoodleFan: This is a dog that is learning, not a trained dog. pgm: if the dog was trained it would not require corrections. Corrections are part of the learning process. Nothing to do wth blaming the dog.

Sidoney: "to see the dog as needing clarification" pgm: that is precisely what the correction is meant to provide - 'clarification'. It has nothing whatsoever to do with punishing misbehavior.

PoodleFan: I'd suggest you go back to the distance at which he fronts reliably and then work slowly out again, sounds like he hasn't quite got the idea yet. pgm: you see the difference between my approach and your own. From the same description you interpret the dog as dumb and in need of further revision. Whereas I see an example of a rather intelligent, inventive little fella simply having a bit of fun, playing the goat and having a lend of his handler. Your approach to my mind is condescending and lacking in respect for the dog's intelligence.

Put a light line on the dog (a light piece of rope from the hardware store will do) maybe twenty feet or so. When he runs past just stand on the line, then when he has stopped just pick up the line and guide him into the correct position. You might have to do this for a couple of months until he gets into the habit of not running past.

As for building up the joy in joining in with her dog PGM: what is the logic of doing this? The logic of doing this is to disassociate herself with positive punishment (as defined by OC). Meaning if this technique (using positive punishment as defined in OC) is going to succeed in stopping this behavior, and not just when she is around, but stopping it altogether, then she must disassociate herself from the adversive. This btw is why I suggested the ecollar is a much more effective tool in stopping this kind of behavior - it is much easier to disassociate oneself from the application of the adversive. You will not understand this: it is difficult to explain. What she is trying to present to the dog (and remember, the only thing that really matters in this scenario is what the dog thinks, not what you or I think) is that her behavior is just something that happens to her - not something that she intends, but something that just comes over her uncontrollably. Like the wind, or thunder, just a fact of nature, part what kind of creature she is, rather than something she is doing, something that happens to her. People read her descriptions of joy in this as if it is personal - it is exactly the opposite. But how can I say? - read the book.

Tess32: I said that the writing style is very alienating and her writing connotes a sense of glee or a kind of sadistic frivolity. Her motivations are irrelevant - that's the way it sounds to me, and I'd guess, a reasonable amount of other people. PGM: these things would sound different to your ears if you understood what her intentions were. Tess32: I don't see the point of writing a training book/article and alienating potential users of the book. PGM: It is not a training book, it is a philosophical book. And if I may, to quote Wittgenstein: you cannot write philosophy to please people.

clickingmad: can I safely say that you believe that reliability is evidenced in a dog that enjoys the task that it has been trained (regardless of the task) and that that task is the reward in itself? ergo: no need for external encouragement, or reward? the trained task = reward! PGM: a couple of things. Encouragement from the handler is internal to the task - it is after all a social and cooperative activity. Dogs that are rewarded with a game of tug for completing a trained task (as distinct from the process of training) I would argue associate the game of tug as internal to the activity itself. Hence you take away the game of tug and you lose reliability. Secondly, encouragement from the handler can be as subtle as a nod of the head. Clickingmad: and then can I safely say that you believe that positive reinforcement cannot produce such reliability? PGM: it can so long as the what is internal to the activity (the game of tug, a treat) is maintained.

Rusky: I have never taught my dog to look up to me.

There is a story about Hearne giving a lecture to a group of behaviorists. She showed them a clip from the Wizard of OZ, the scene where Judy Garland sung over the rainbow. In the same scene there was a dog with Garland (I forget its name). At the end of the clip she asked the behaviorists how the dog was trained - they gave the usual stuff about shaping behavior and so forth. She then handed them a small terrier she had with her and a box of liver treats and said right - 'show me how to train the dog to 'look over the rainbow'. They had no idea what she was talking about and naturally never invited her back. That about sums up the difference.

Sidoney: to what extent does your belief system align with what else is written there, and in what places would you differ? PGM: I do not know how to answer that question in the space of a post. Let me say this, Hearne's writing belongs to a philosophical tradition that includes such writers as Emerson, Thoreau, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Cavell to name a few. I myself identify and belong to that same tradition. I understand Hearne because I understand the philosophical sensibility out of which she writes. It is really not a matter of agreeing with her - or agreeing with the particular methods she uses - it's about understanding the sensibility that informs her writing.

I don't lose my temper, but I do occasionally get frustrated, which unfortunately is harder to spot. Trouble is, it's not hard for my dog to spot, so I have to pay close attention to his attitude. I am not perfect in this unfortunately.