Black Bronson

I get really annoyed hearing about these incidents with dogs biting kids and the course of action being appropriate to put the dog down. Dogs of any breed can bite kids at any time, I can think of a dozen dogs I know that probably would bite kids in certain circumstances, but why don't dog owners take some responsibility to prevent these attacks happening

There are many advantages to ending training on a high for the dog more so than winding a driven dog down. When training ends high, the dog is more likely to begin the next session high straight out of the box, where on a wind down, it can take valuable time to get the dog back up to where it was last session.

I wouldn't be worried about the advertising itself, just yet. Maybe pop into the Amstaff thread and chat with some knowledgeable folk there who can guide you with relation to relevant health testing etc. Is he ANKC registered? If so, is he on the main register? Do you show your dog? so many questions before anything else...... It's not YOUR job to find him 'suitable mates'... but rather breeders need to want to use HIM. IMHO, a guality dog who is visible to the breed community needs little promotion. ETA - WHY does the breeder think he would make a great stud dog? I would be interested to know what the dog brings to the table also???

A planned break in to steal a GSD puppy, obviously someone wanted it which is great and hopefully has a good home. What does the animal shelter want it back for or making an issue of the theft............doesn't make sense I wonder what an 8 week old GSD puppy is doing at the shelter in the first place, I guess a BYB???

Yes Jeanne possibly. There are doctors who only do the old gall bladder invasive procedure never being taught the keyhole method............same thing with trainers taught only one method???.

I can imagine that Cosmolo. It seems if they can't provide adequate training to rehabilitate certain behaviours, the recommendation to PTS is common, especially if aggression is concerned That's disgusting behaviour on the part of the behaviourist. The idea of anyone advising PTS for a dog for bouncing and lunging and leash pulling simply boggles the mind. Wonder what they'd do with my malinois girl, she practically lives life 6 feet off the ground. Sounds like the kind of common, simple behavior that's fixed or shaped relatively quickly by any competent trainer - whether they be traditional, positive, or whatever. Many of these Delta style training schools won't take working breeds at all.........the mind does boggle

Our GSD used to do that about 4am a couple of time a week when he was around 4 to 5 months of age. A couple of dog biscuits as we went to bed at 11.30pm competely fixed the problem. Still gets his biscuit 3 years later and waits for it at bedtime

I can imagine that Cosmolo. It seems if they can't provide adequate training to rehabilitate certain behaviours, the recommendation to PTS is common, especially if aggression is concerned

Schutzhund training I think is the only dogsport represented passionately by men and women more equally. I guess Schutzhund is open to more blokey breeds too

A couple around the corner from us have a very nice young male Boxer who is 13 months old. I have seen them many times when walking my dogs and the poor Boxer is all over the place dragging the owners around on a silly harness. A couple of weeks ago I ran across them on a walk and they commented how well our GSD behaves on leash and asked who trained him looking for a recommendation and began to tell me this horror story that had happened to them with trainers. They originally went to an obedience school and were kicked out as their Boxer was disruptive and sent to a vetinary behaviourist. They were recommended to have some tests done on the dog to make sure he had all his wits about him and then he was de-sexed to improve his behavior. He was then recommended by the vetianary behaviourist another trainer for a one on one program. To cut along story short $1450 later, the have an out of control Boxer bouncing on the end of a harness in the belief that their dog has an genetic disorder and should be PTS, all from the Delta system of complete fools in this case. I offered to help them purely as the thought of PTS of such a lovely dog for no reason other than adolescent uncontrollability was rediculous and met them at the park. The Boxer was perfect and a friendly bouncy boy of untrained energy. With my prong collar and a handful of doggy treats, in 20 minutes I had that Boxer walking beautifully on a loose leash. In one hour, we had the same with both husband and wife handling the dog. I saw them this afternoon, the Boxer is on a martingale and is 90% leash trained in two weeks. WTF , these owners of the Boxer are inexperienced, didn't know any better and were trying to do the right thing and were taken for a ride through total incompetence

Going off topic but somewhat related: (and certainly not to provoke any dog trainers who have undertaken any dog trainer/instructors course/s) It is about time that one set of Curriculum and Qualifications and Regulations apply to ALL dog trainer courses being offered in Australia. Why! Because at the moment in Victoria: Anyone can open a dog training school, no experience necessary, some people even pay* for a theoretical course with little or no hands on experience throughout the course. *Some don't even have to pay because a course is recognised by the NQF the student may be entitled to Government payments to undertake the course. The ridiculous senario of undertaking a NQF course like the NDTF course or some modules in other organisations "dog training" courses that have been Nationally Recognised under the National Qualification Framework (Federal Legislation), the course is not recognised by the Department of Primary Industry in Victoria (State Legislation), who is reponsible for dog training establishments in Victoria through the Domestic Animals Act. (There is no Federal legislation that applies to dog training establishments). Unfortunately NQF do not recognise the DAA, and the DPI, administrators for the DAA do not recognise the NQF, eg. Under the Domestic Animals Act the term "qualified dog trainer" is only applicable for a person that has undertaken a course approved by a recognised organisation approved by the Victorian Minister of Agriculture. (NDTF and a few others do not meet this criteria). There is presently no such terminology recognised under the NQF! It is about time that one curriculum, qualification and regulation standard is recognised nationally for the dog training establishments within Australia. It's wrong but no different to a lot of unregulated trades. Many people open and work in trade businesses who have no trade qualifications either. It is time all these are regulated including dog trainers and behaviourists. I know some of the franchise training businesses, the new franchise owner gets a two day course and is then regarded as an expert dog trainer. People spend money with these establishments, get no where with their dog because the trainer has virtually no experience which is a blatant rip off really

Asa vom Haus Gebets is our puppy's great grand dad We probably have some more common ancestors in our pedigrees Aidan I like your "stop" command in the vid, I like to teach a stop which you don't see that often anymore

Are we talking about letting a dog go to the end of a long-line for a "self-correction" while running towards another dog with aggressive intent? For far too many reasons I would not attempt that. It isn't safe, it isn't responsible (to either dog), and it isn't good training. It wouldn't even be good Koehler method training. I have used corrections. I don't live in a vaccuum. I had a practical knowledge before a theoretical knowledge With my training I'm not just aiming to be able to walk a dog-aggressive dog past another dog, I have my own dog walking off-leash with other dogs, free to make her own decisions and not under command to do anything specific preventing her from aggression. We were attacked by two dogs recently, she ignored them until she absolutely had to defend herself then she did what she had to do then let it go and we walked off as if nothing had happened. This is a bitch from hard, working lines and in the past she has attacked legs, belly and throat (inhibited bites, but death threats all the same). It takes a lot of positive experiences to turn that around, we're not just talking about overt behaviours but also affective behaviours, emotions, brain chemicals, nervous system activity etc I didn't say that the correction you described wouldn't work (nor am I sure we were talking about the same thing?), but that the probability was low. I don't need to correct her for reaching the end of the line to teach her to come back, I have taught her to come back without doing that. I have used (very judiciously) some collar pops in that process, and they were enough. I have done it a few times in extreme cases allowing a self correction on a long leash, but is critical to ensure that the dog doesn't gain too much momentum to prevent an injury but enough to provide a good correction. It was an old method used to stop dogs chasing cars, but in this day and age, I would opt for an ecollar in the same situation. If one wants to correct a dog for being inappropriately predatory, then I would think that this wasn't the most effective way to give a correction, seeing as the dog has already self rewarded by going into prey drive & starting the chase before the correction is issued? In my limited experience, giving a correction just as the dog is orienting on the stimulus is far more effective than giving a correction once the dog is amped up in full prey mode. Just saying. The self reward is catching the prey and the dog came to the end of the line before it caught it, in other words the prey attempt failed. A few failures with enough negativity to take the dog out of drive makes the dog rethink it's decisions. I disagree. It has been my experience that for many high drive dogs, the very act of going into drive is rewarding, even if the drive isn't actually satisfied with a bite. Frustration increases drive. That is more pronounced if the dog has been training in drive, but depending on what someone is trying to teach like the farmer trying to stop his Mali chasing and killing sheep, the long line correction worked perfectly. If you are training a sporting dog then drive suppression that way can effect it's performance elsewhere, but ultimately the reward is the catch, the bite. Bit like slipping the sleeve in bitework to win the sleeve and the ramp up and agitation in drive is to get the sleeve off the decoy in training. Same if you hide the sleeve.........the dog comes charging out for the long bite in full drive and slows up, looks around, looks back at the handler, what's going on, no sleeve Have you seen that done in a Schutzhund demo........quite funny

GSD, you can see her here: (muzzle and long-line, it's an off-leash area) She is a DDR, I found this video of her stunning grand-sire last night: I did wonder if we were talking about the same thing, I use the long-line in my classes and when a dog goes over-threshold we try to catch them before they get any momentum and even then I shudder every time! Very nice girl Aidan, she's obviously a Von forell breeding with Hassan as her grand dad???. My puppy has a Von Forell dad going back to DDR lines. I will see if Hassan is in his ancestors.

Are we talking about letting a dog go to the end of a long-line for a "self-correction" while running towards another dog with aggressive intent? For far too many reasons I would not attempt that. It isn't safe, it isn't responsible (to either dog), and it isn't good training. It wouldn't even be good Koehler method training. I have used corrections. I don't live in a vaccuum. I had a practical knowledge before a theoretical knowledge With my training I'm not just aiming to be able to walk a dog-aggressive dog past another dog, I have my own dog walking off-leash with other dogs, free to make her own decisions and not under command to do anything specific preventing her from aggression. We were attacked by two dogs recently, she ignored them until she absolutely had to defend herself then she did what she had to do then let it go and we walked off as if nothing had happened. This is a bitch from hard, working lines and in the past she has attacked legs, belly and throat (inhibited bites, but death threats all the same). It takes a lot of positive experiences to turn that around, we're not just talking about overt behaviours but also affective behaviours, emotions, brain chemicals, nervous system activity etc I didn't say that the correction you described wouldn't work (nor am I sure we were talking about the same thing?), but that the probability was low. I don't need to correct her for reaching the end of the line to teach her to come back, I have taught her to come back without doing that. I have used (very judiciously) some collar pops in that process, and they were enough. I have done it a few times in extreme cases allowing a self correction on a long leash, but is critical to ensure that the dog doesn't gain too much momentum to prevent an injury but enough to provide a good correction. It was an old method used to stop dogs chasing cars, but in this day and age, I would opt for an ecollar in the same situation. If one wants to correct a dog for being inappropriately predatory, then I would think that this wasn't the most effective way to give a correction, seeing as the dog has already self rewarded by going into prey drive & starting the chase before the correction is issued? In my limited experience, giving a correction just as the dog is orienting on the stimulus is far more effective than giving a correction once the dog is amped up in full prey mode. Just saying. The self reward is catching the prey and the dog came to the end of the line before it caught it, in other words the prey attempt failed. A few failures with enough negativity to take the dog out of drive makes the dog rethink it's decisions.

A huge achievement! Is this with dogs she knows or any dogs???.

Are we talking about letting a dog go to the end of a long-line for a "self-correction" while running towards another dog with aggressive intent? For far too many reasons I would not attempt that. It isn't safe, it isn't responsible (to either dog), and it isn't good training. It wouldn't even be good Koehler method training. I have used corrections. I don't live in a vaccuum. I had a practical knowledge before a theoretical knowledge With my training I'm not just aiming to be able to walk a dog-aggressive dog past another dog, I have my own dog walking off-leash with other dogs, free to make her own decisions and not under command to do anything specific preventing her from aggression. We were attacked by two dogs recently, she ignored them until she absolutely had to defend herself then she did what she had to do then let it go and we walked off as if nothing had happened. This is a bitch from hard, working lines and in the past she has attacked legs, belly and throat (inhibited bites, but death threats all the same). It takes a lot of positive experiences to turn that around, we're not just talking about overt behaviours but also affective behaviours, emotions, brain chemicals, nervous system activity etc I didn't say that the correction you described wouldn't work (nor am I sure we were talking about the same thing?), but that the probability was low. I don't need to correct her for reaching the end of the line to teach her to come back, I have taught her to come back without doing that. I have used (very judiciously) some collar pops in that process, and they were enough. I have done it a few times in extreme cases allowing a self correction on a long leash, but is critical to ensure that the dog doesn't gain too much momentum to prevent an injury but enough to provide a good correction. It was an old method used to stop dogs chasing cars, but in this day and age, I would opt for an ecollar in the same situation. What have you got Aidan, GSD, Malinios, Rotty???. I get the picture now using a long leash as a saftey net with a serious dog where I often use a muzzle for the same reason for sensible practice

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel". The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there. So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase. Ok had a walk yesterday evening, and I think I am having the same problem as above. He responds well to my distracting him but only if I call out his name for him to look at me. A couple of times he saw the people and I could see him start to get excited so I said "Archer" and only then did he look back at me and I marked and rewarded. If he is not offering the behaviour on his own does this mean we are still not far enough away from the stimuli? Or that I need to retrain this behaviour without saying his name? I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing that. ETA also what should I do if I find myself in a situation where I can't get far enough away from the stimuli? For example yesterday unexpectedly as we were walking past a bus stop a bus pulled up and a man got out and started walking right towards us. I had nowhere to go so I just held the lead very tight and close and tried to distract Archer. It wasn't all that successful. When Archer looked back at you after calling his name, marking and rewarding, what did he do then, behave completely or regain his focus and excitement on the other person once the mark and reward was over???. What I would work at is not teaching the dog to do something specific like a heel, but teach the dog to do nothing in the presence of a distraction, just mind it's business and keep walking and following your lead. I don't believe as a handler you need to alert the dog to a situation and make an issue of it and is the reason I don't like distracting the dog away from a stimulus that causes the dog to react. I don't want any automatic responses from the dog other than to ignor the stimulus as if it wasn't present and didn't happen as an end result. I use positive reinforcement to motivate a dog to do something and negative reinforcement to stop a dog from misbehaviour as a general rule and lunging is a behaviour you are trying to stop which I would teach the dog that there is a negative to that response. I like a choker chain, prong collar or dominant dog collar to eliminate that behaviour with a command and leash correction if the dog disobeys. I use a "leave it" command but you can say Aggghhhh, NO anything really as long as the command is the same word and consistant, commanded the "moment" that the dog pulls towards the person followed by a leash correction of the dog doesn't respond to the command and behave. You start off with distance between you and the stimulus that sets the dog off, walking around shopping centres is a good place out on the footpath to begin with where the dog can see plenty of people and provides a great opportunity to train and proof the right behaviour, then move in closer as the dog improves until you can stand at the main enterance of the shops and the dog ignors everyone and everything and only respond to you. Getting caught with someone getting off a bus in front of you with nowhere to go is when I would implement the "emergency brake" and lift the dogs front feet off the ground slowly lifting the leash straight up and holding until the dog regains it's composure then praise like hell when the dog settles. IMHO, the dog needs to learn that lunging behaviour has a consequence and the correct behaviour will be rewarded

If they have disobeyed the command they were not under stimulus control, so it is functionally the same thing whether you give the command or not. The difference is that if you do give the command, you are teaching the dog to comply with the command which is counter to the aims expressed earlier of having the dog walk past the other dog at heel without being commanded. Either way, +R only or with the addition of a correction, you're going to have to take the command out of the picture and get this behaviour to generalise or become paired with the other dog regardless of the command. A correction has no advantage here specifically over using +R to meet this aim. What I work on is the "leave it" command intially, and will correct the dog when disobeying which will depend upon the level of distraction if the dog reacts or not. What becomes conditioned in the dog when teaching the "leave it" command when applying the command in repetition to the reactive stimulus, the dog learns to "leave" those those situations alone and relax. What results is the dog ignors the stimulus that previously set off a lunging reaction. I took my wife's GSD for nice long walk and a few routines this afternoon thinking about this situation with this thread in mind. He is an aggressive lunger by nature and we encountered an off leash dog charging towards us barking and growling and commanded "leave it" the moment his ears went forward. My dog obeyed and stood still for me to shoo away the offending dog and for kids with the off leash little rascal to gather it up. This situation for my wife's boy is a major distraction to stimulate defence and fighting drive in this particular dog but trained in this method, he responded perfectly as I expected from him and the finished product is reliable. There may be other training methods that would achieve the same thing, and the beauty of these discussions is to share methodology where we can all learn something new and improve upon what we already know

OK, so a dog that is lunging and yapping its head off and deficates on itself when made to "face it's fears" (I hate to admit it, but before I came back in touch with my positive roots I did try to "correct" Berri's behavior, and this is what happened - Got me back to training positive in no time and I'm still kicking myself putting him through this), ears back, tail down (not between his legs, down toward the ground), would just be a plain aggression issue and warrent leash corrections to teach the dog that you call the shots, not it? I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, yes I deal with the problem as it stands but think it a much better option to "err on the side of caution" and remain positive with the dog, because you're right, you never do know what is going through its head and what seems a "friendly" lunge may even be a dog protecting its space because of an underlying fear. That is a serious case of fear if the dog is loosing control of it's bowels and to be honest, I don't have experience with dogs like that and is interesting to learn from people how to deal with that situation best. We don't use dogs with that temperament type for working potential and can imagine that fearful behaviour of that nature would be a handful to condition.

congratulations I have a real soft spot for the blacks. Make sure you post photos when you get him/her I was hoping for a pure black which was a possibility in this litter and the whole 5 were born pure black We love the pure black GSD's, they are beautiful.

But punishment would correct the behavior rather than supress it? I'm not sure how that would work? The dog you mention seems to have been proofed against distractions, this is different to counter conditioning where the dogs emotional state has been altered, the dog associating the feared object with good things instead of bad things. Berri used to be fear aggressive to children (I know I've mentioned this before), now he actually SEEKS them out, he even went up and gave a toddler a lick the other day. I still wouldn't trust him alone with a strange kid, but I no longer freak out about how he's going to react when I see a kid, rather I see it as yet another opportunity for reinforcement. Jeanne, fear aggression does my head in as there are so many theories about it and the reactions caused by it, unless the dog is backing away tail between it's legs in an obvious fearful state, I simply don't get involved in thinking about it and just work through the aggression problem itself as it stands.

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel". The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there. So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase. To simply walk past another dog and issue a leash correction when it's about to lunge is wrong and unfair on the dog I think. A correction IMO should be used for disobeying a command. When you get a feel for a particular dog's behaviour, you learn what triggers the dog to lunge. Be it a friendly play, a dog aggressive stimuli whatever, is where my 'leave it" command comes in that I like to condition in the dog which works in any situation.

That happens with the chain off because the idea is to reinforce the corrected behaviour which is more important than the correction itself. Whipping a dog around by the neck on a choker teaches fear and avoidance. The essence of choker chain training is to teach the dog that your guidence is essential for his/her pleasure. Many people incorrectly use a choker as a punishment system for naughty dogs which is not what it's about.

Yes, the first two or three chapters in the first Koehler book are OK. I trained my last dog to loose leash walk using similar methods and he had a very reliable loose lead walk. There are other, more modern, methods you can use to get similar results, but the Koehler ones are still valid and can work well. One big downside of the Koehler method is that it does need a check chain, and you do give leash corrections, so you can't do it with a young puppy. All those months of training wasted until the dog is "old enough" to train! You can start clicker or drive training the minute you get your new puppy home. I don't particularly like the Koehler methods used for teaching the other exercises (sit, down, recall), they work OK, but in my experience you can get better (faster, more precise, equally reliable) results using more modern positive methods. Marker/clicker type training is IMO the best method for teaching these things, as it allows you to communicate to the dog precisely what you want, without even having to lay a hand on the dog. And I've never seen a recall that beats a recall in drive. The "problem solving" section at the back of the Koehler method book is archaic and IMO should not longer even be published. Some of those methods for solving behaviour issues might have been acceptable in the 50s when there were no commercial dog behaviourists and people had no other options, but now days you'd be better off seeing a professional instead of opening that chapter. Koehler's leash work I like a lot and I agree that the problem solving is the major cause of people developing an anti-Koehler approach and throwing the book away, but in fact can miss out on learning some very good parts of the Koehler system. I don't know why they still publish the problem solving section as it does them a injustice Puppies...........I am on the fence at present as to how much to try and train and suppress them with too many rules, many good arguments for and against and many great sporting dogs trained early and late. Perhaps drive building and play, then obedience when old enough for a choker???.