talking dog

Pending on the breed and for what purpose the dog was bred for, there is a huge difference between agility and normal obedience training on the one side, and herding training on the other side. You can't use aversives for agility, agility is all about motivating and cheering the dog, it is all about using the principles of positive reinforcement - the moment you have to force a dog to do agility it is over, and I can't see any purpose in forcing a dog to do it. If I find my dog not in the mood for agility training (rare, but it can happen), then so be it, training cancelled - I don't force her to do it. For agility I need a dog on fire, not a dog I have to pressure to do it. It is a total different animal (literally) wrt sheep or cattle herding (which is nothing else than hunting without the final kill) for a real herding dog. Agility is fun, but when you watch herding dogs doing their job driven by their instinct, you suddenly recognize that it is a dead serious business for the dog. It isn't hard to recognize the wolf in these dogs, all what we did via selective breeding is that we eliminated the final kill. And if I talk about real herding dogs I mean dogs that don't need any treats, games, toys, pats etc. as a reward - the reward is the work with the sheep or cattle. If the dog has a very strong drive, and if it was bred as a nipper (often preferred for cattle) it is pretty challenging to control and train the dog on sheep. Sometimes nippers with high confidence are preferred for sheep not trained previously with dogs, however, in trials you get immediately disqualified if the dog nips a sheep. Now people like Susan Garett do a fantastic job, but I believe - also based on my experience - there are horses for courses. Hunting and chasing prey animals is for every dog pretty self rewarding, once experienced, the jinn is usually out of the bottle. It is easy to correct this if you find a reward with a higher value, and you actually might find one, if the prey / herding drive in the dog isn't so strong. However, most dogs are dogs, and it is very likely that you won't find a reward with a higher value. Consequently - regarding the OP's issue - positive reinforcement doesn't work to train the dog not to attack the chickens as attacking the chickens follows already the principle of positive reinforcement, and there is likely no other reward that has more value for the dog compared with chasing these fluffy screaming fun balls. Now we are back to the bee - the dog (assuming he is a smart one) won't chase the bees - why not? The kind of aversive stimuli that would work for the OP depends on drive of the dog, localities, how deep the chasing is already reinforced etc. etc., and it will only work if used clinically. For every attempt attack there has to be a correction - with or without the owner close to the dog. For some dogs a towel ("bonker") thrown at the dog works, for others water hose, water filled balloons, some respond just to unpleasant sounds or loud noise. The most difficult part is to train the dog that the rules have to be obeyed also if the owner is away. Hide behind a bush, door, car and be ready if the dog makes an attempt. In addition to the positive punishment part of the training, it requires also work with the dog close to the chicken: let the dog approach the chicken (use a leash if this is the only way to control him), reward if it is in a controlled manner, let him sit and watch, drop, stand - exercise him close to the chicken and reward, reward. This is positive reinforcement for the good behaviour - but it won't work without the positive punishment part as it will otherwise always compete with the reward from chasing the chicken. This training needs 100% commitment to be successful, there is no room for error. If the OP is not willing to spend the time and effort, then it is option a: keep them separated.

I don't argue, I just refer to the existing law here in AU regarding cyber bullying that also applies to scenarios where an identifiable person calls another identifiable person names on a public forum.

I wonder how many people would buy a new Mercedes that shows severe scratches on one side without asking for a discount. Conversely to a dog (which is evaluated a "good", hence same criteria applies) with hearing loss in one ear those scratches don't affect driving and safety - they really only disturb the look. For the dog it has some significant disadvantages - well, only if you intend to train the dog. Basic physical knowledge tells you that 2 functional ears are required to locate a sound - there is a reason why mother nature used this design for mammals. With only one functional ear the dog will encounter problems with recalls if the owner is out of sight (could be due a bush, dune, wall etc...) as he can't recognise from where the call is coming from; so if you intend to do agility, or you want to enjoy off leash walking, i.e. all activities that require remote training, this disadvantage will be more than a scratch in a door of a new car. severe problems with hearing if there is background noise (traffic noise, TV, wind, rain etc. etc.); as a consequence background noise can be actually stressful for a lot of dogs with unilateral deafness; Of course, it is all manageable, but I guess not many people would by a new car with scratches if the price isn't adjusted.

the problem with a "positive only" approach here is that your dog already found the reward that has the highest value for him - you will have problems to find something that has a significant higher value that allows you to use positive reinforcement as a working tool. Hence there are only 2 options: a) you keep them separated, or b) you use positive punishment. I don't believe that a muzzle here is a good option as he can do severe damage also with paws if he tries to catch the chickens. Think about a puppy exploring the backyard for the first time and investigating a bee - usually they learn pretty fast without developing all those issues the "positive only" fanatics are afraid off. In sheepdog herding training sometimes a whack with a pool noddle is used to teach a dog that is too ambitious to keep the required distance from the sheep. A whack with a pool noddle doesn't do any harm to the dog, and the sheep will appreciate it. It is also important - for a successful training - that you provide alternative outlets for your dog's drive, e.g. flirt pole games where he can chase a lure. The more his appetite for chasing things is satisfied, the easier he will be to train.

No, actually we can't - no matter what this person did, we can't call him names on a public forum as this would be cyber bullying - a serious offence. He abuses his dog, you abuse a person - based on law both has consequences. All this guy has to do is taking a screen shot of your abuse and give it to his lawyer and you are in for a hefty fine.

https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0023-8 the evidence that those breeds are unhealthy breeds is overwhelming. And having a 350% higher chance of URT disorders than other breeds can't be explained with backyard breeding etc., but only with the unhealthy breeding standards - other breeds are also target of backyard breeding, and still they don't show such high numbers of URT disorders. Considering the high vet costs for caesarean, AI and associated health issues, it is actually unlikely that those breeds are the first target of breeders that only breed for money. The selected breeding standards are just too far away from the standards mother nature / evolution specified and tested for canines. The kennel clubs are part of the problem, as they limit the gene pool even further. E.g. the inbreeding coefficient for pugs according to UK Kennel Club is already 5.7% - i.e. they are more or less all first cousins! With such a high inbreeding coefficient and the undeniable severe health issues, and the breeding standards that address the expected show looks more than the fit-for-a-dog-life-requirements, it is hard to see a way out.