Aidan3

Up until very recently I've only run classes for "problem" dogs, or those who used to be problem dogs. Just recently I've started accepting a few more normal dogs into one of my classes. Provided people are given good, simple instructions (and simple is all they need to be if they are good instructions), then the biggest factor for success seems to be how consistent people are in using those skills on a day-to-day basis. This is as true for the problem dogs as it is for the normal dogs, and as true for the low-drive dogs as it is for the high-drive dogs.

I doubt the AA video evidence will have anything to do with the case. For that matter, it's not clear what the charges actually do relate to.

Good trainers have handled a lot of dogs, they are unconsciously competent at what they do, and the dog has no learning history with them. Watch me walk any client's dog, then watch me walk my own dog :laugh:

The dog on the right seems a little short for the standard to me. What do you guys reckon? Nice straight back, though.

Let's say we take two groups, picked at random, half are socialised and the other half are sequestered. We find a difference between the groups that is unlikely to be due to chance. Is that speculation or guess work?

Not quite true, and I do worry that this is the idea that people have of aversion training. A dog can't "unlearn" something, the behaviour is always there but under effective punishment it is suppressed for some amount of time. Punished responses can and do spontaneously re-appear. What if the dog has never seen a snake before? Is it 'unlearning'? Ha, good question! If they've never seen a snake before, but they show interest and you punish that, it's still suppression of some learned or innate response.

Not quite true, and I do worry that this is the idea that people have of aversion training. A dog can't "unlearn" something, the behaviour is always there but under effective punishment it is suppressed for some amount of time. Punished responses can and do spontaneously re-appear.

So how would you solve it then? I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that having an excited dog that is out of sight should not be a unique set of problems that requires -R because +R can't effectively deal with it. Trainers who are skilled in +R do not see either of those scenarios and think "we'll have to use an e-collar because there's no way we can work this out using +R". We do these things with far less biddable, and far more "hard-wired" animals than dogs.

Like most analogies, you have to be careful how far you can take them. An electric fence has a clear contingency, the animal [usually] knows exactly what produced the shock and thus, how to avoid it in future. There are endless studies of what happens when the animal doesn't figure out quickly how to avoid the shock; and those symptoms range from transient distress to chronic anxiety and even depression. When we're talking about a bark collar, or a remote collar used to train something with a very clear contingency (e.g kitchen counter surfing), the risk is low provided the trainer has good timing (and with an e-collar, you're marking not only the onset of response but the cessation of the response). Once you start to use the collar in more complex scenarios, the risks increase. The risk of physical damage from the collar is negligible whether it's a 600kg horse or a 10kg dog, unless you leave it on for too long. I don't know if there has ever been a confirmed case where a collar has malfunctioned and caused electrical burns, the images I've seen have been of necrotic lesions which are not caused by shock.

You do realise that people who train feral cat detection dogs do actually use +R to teach this? This is not one of the problems with +R that -R seeks to solve and I would suggest that anyone who chooses to use an e-collar simply because the dog is excited and out of sight should not be training detection dogs.

I don't know if people necessarily mean to abuse their dog, but just like with check chains and verbal corrections, you do find an extraordinary number of people with poor timing, inconsistent criteria, and vague, unreasonable, or even contradictory expectations. They seem to be completely oblivious to any of these problems, and many even think they are great trainers despite the evidence. Couple that with the consistent message that "it's only a tickle" (not untrue, but only at the lowest perceptible setting, and this changes as a function of resistance) and you have people oblivious to their dog's avoidance behaviours - the absence of yelps and squeals being all they need to assure them that "it's only a tickle". I'm currently working with a dog who suffered dreadful mishandling by another trainer and now has a bite history, on top of severe anxiety. I sent the client off to the vet for a physical and to discuss medication. The vet told them to get an e-collar. This dog urinated while he bit their previous trainer, but the vet seems to think a complete novice might do a better job with an e-collar.

Aidan2 - do you have any further info on where I could locate these studies? thanks Most of them are stuck behind a pay-wall, but the abstracts are available - and perhaps more revealing, critiques can be found in other articles that cite the sources. http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=0&q=electronic+dog+training+collar+sheep&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

I've never had access to snakes to do any sort of training to avoid them, and instead have relied reducing my risk through avoiding off-leash activity in the bush during summer and a strong recall. One trick that I did use with my old GSD, who had a lot of prey drive, was to toss rocks into the bushes without her seeing me do it. This created a noise which triggered her orienting reflex, she would go to sniff, nothing would be there. Eventually she learned to ignore rustles in the undergrowth.

An infinite number of solutions exist to this problem. Reliability is dependent upon so many factors, we would need to introduce constraints to find a solution - and no-one seems willing to agree upon those. I'm yet to find a study of snake avoidance training. Studies of sheep avoidance training offer mixed results.

I would emphatically disagree with this assertion, but it is true that if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. If the data collection is biased or flawed, so will be any conclusions or inferences drawn from it.

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know. WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out. But I'd like to know what those ratcheted up processes are. In the past, there was a recording system thro' hospital data/records. The definition of a dog bite for reporting in stats, was one that required hospital treatment. Has a mandatory system extended that to GPs, ambulance centres etc? If so, those bites below the level of hospital treatment will now be counted. If stats come from medical treatment sources, then in-home bites would more likely be picked up. And most bites, especially of children, happen in their homes. Or is the data collected only via reports by the public to animal management? If so, there's now the definition of 'rushing' as an 'attack'. And would in-home bites be picked up? Those stats only tell us anything of use, if we know who's reporting what to whom & how. Yes, indeed. I hate it when we're told something is true, but are then left to find our own evidence to support the other's claim!

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know. WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out.

Again, where is the evidence that dog aggression is on the rise?

Is dog aggression on the rise? I'd be very surprised if that were true.

I got a fully illuminated collar off eBay for $8 to test the idea out (having spent a bit of money on flashers). It's still going strong despite my old Golden's penchant for water, so I haven't needed to invest in a "better" one.

Regarding the bolded part, you may be surprised to know that a dog who is on leash and being approached by an off leash dog may have a very strong reaction, compared to the same dogs in a situation where both dogs are off leash. It may be in your dogs' best interest not to let them approach dogs on leash simply to avoid being hurt by an on leash dog overreacting. I hope if your dog approached an on lead dog and received a negative reaction you would not have been complaining, since it would be your own fault for letting it approach a dog on leash. I wouldn't be surprised by anything. I owned a reactive dog for 9 years, and I specialise in behaviour modification for reactive and aggressive dogs. I've lived with it, and I've seen a large spectrum of dogs with issues around other dogs and people. I also know my dog, and I've seen him around a lot of reactive and aggressive dogs. He avoids trouble. An accident is not anyone's fault, but I think people who take shy or reactive dogs to off-leash dog beaches at peak times when there are on-leash options nearby are lacking in common sense and shouldn't complain when - surprise, surprise - they run into a lot of off-leash dogs playing nicely with each other. It's not nice for their dog or for people who are rightfully using that area as it has been designated. My dog is the least of their problems, but I think this ill-placed sense of entitlement that some people have needs to be kept in check. In my area there are a range of excellent options to suit every sort of dog. I live right by this beach, but in 9 years I didn't take my reactive dog there because it wasn't fair to other users or to her. Sorry, but are you saying that I have an ill-placed sense of entitlement when I exercise my reactive dog off leash in an off leash area at a distance from other dogs and expect the other owners to ask if their dogs can interact with mine rather than letting them get in his face? My dog is highly trained in obedience and avoids other dog if they are too full on. I think the people who have a sense of entitlement in this situation are the ones who allow their dogs to run up to strange dogs without permission or who are unable to recall their dogs on request. No, I just think you're choosing to take offence at what I've written. If you have an off-leash area where you can reasonably expect to do this, then go for it. If you don't, then don't be surprised when you are approached by off-leash dogs. I owned a reactive, working-line GSD for 9 years and she was well trained and well exercised. We used the former type of area regularly, and never the latter. Still, we were approached often. And not once did I act surprised, or worse, try to knock someone's block off. Common sense instead of a misplaced sense of entitlement, you see? ETA: and yes, most reactive and shy dogs are miserable at dog parks. This is why they do their best to try to avoid other dogs, either by reacting or trying to get away when approached. Again, if you have enough room to keep them comfortable, great! If not, don't do it.

Stalkers!

Oh here we go, these band breed threads always end up in insults and threats. Now we just need someone to come in and tell us that all band breeds sound the same then Troy can lock this thread up.

Beyond jorts, there is nothing that can further enhance my image. What band breed do I own? You probably haven't heard of it.

It was fairly obvious that this was a troll thread.... agree. Yet, no one has been trolling. True it has been quite educational. Would you like me to get the ball rolling? How about we discuss other band breeds? I would like to get a Rolling Stones pup, to go with my Cold Play bitch. I would like to get a Def Leppard puppy, but I'm not a fan of long hair. Geez I would have thought that with all your extensive training experience that you would know better!!!! It's true, I have had extensive training experience in trolling. Do you think we should eradicate band breeds? Reeks of eugenics to me. Then what would we be left with? No more Genesis puppies, and a whole lot of Phil Collins puppies. No thanks!