Erny

I think I understand and know what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Would the following be an appropriate scenario (based on the assumption the dog has developed word association for "sit"): Phase 1 - (teaching "there is a consequence") 1. Command ... wait 1 second 2. No sit 3. Correction Phase 2 - (teaching for "speed compliance") 1. Command ... wait 1 second 2. Dog begins to sit (and completes the sit) Phase 3 - (increasing "speed compliance") 1. Command ... wait 1 second 2. Dog begins to sit but bum not on ground 3. Correct Phase 4 1. Command ... wait 1 second 2. Dog sits and bum is on ground Just to clarify, in case you think I don't reward my dogs, I have left out the reward for compliance on purpose ... I'm just trying to determine the sequence of your command/compliance/correction "pro-active" program to see if I'm understanding you. I agree that learned helplessness is a symptom of stress ... aren't the stakes higher when a command is given at the precise time of a correction (as in Myszka's method explanation), giving the dog not a shorter period of time to comply (and thus avoid the correction) but NO possible time to comply? Again, as in Myszka's methodology, if stress is controlled through motivation for success, how is the dog motivated to achieve what he may well end up thinking is not possible?

I'm not sure what is meant, Mel. K9 referred to a pro-active program. If Myszka's explanation is correct (see post), then I don't see how the dog receives the opportunity to avoid the correction.

If a dog received a check/correction that he could never avoid, "learned helplessness" becomes a risk. Do you always train "pro-active" ?

I've been thinking that too, Haven.

I'm not sure where this impression has arisen, and I'm sorry if I have said, anywhere, that I rely only on the "zing" where the "zing" is not sufficient to alter the unwanted behaviour. I actually thought I have unequivacably stated the opposite. In fact ... I don't recall the last time it was necessary to correct my dog and I don't understand why it has been generalised/assumed that I have to consistently correct any dog. I keep reiterating that an effective correction is one which alters the dog's unwanted behaviour (and I don't mean just for the moment). I've assumed dog trainers all have the same interpretation of "effective" ?

Hi Lablover ..... welcome to the "discussion". Never mentioned because it was never my intention to raise the "zing" as a "how to" lesson. Only ever came up because ages ago in the thread someone (sorry, can't recall who) mentioned he/she didn't like check chains, and I was explaining what, sometimes, can be availed from a check chain. Since then, it appears that posters sought to "grill" me on my statement, rather than to express interest on the "how to" side of things.

Yeah - there is a bit of "hair splitting" - and yes, I have tried to keep this discussion on track by keeping it to the point at hand (which was the "argument" of "zing" -vs- "physical correction"), rather than an explanation of our training methodology as a whole. But, while we're now on the subject, I've mentioned in other posts in other threads that I'm a "balanced" trainer. In fact, I believe that if a correction equates to, say 40 pounds (analogy only), then reward for a job well done is best to equate to 60 pounds (eg). My explanation was not a "4 step process" - in essence, it was only 3. If you re-read, you'll see the 4th sentence was just to show that if the "zing" (which happens naturally with a good correction) serves as the correction, I don't need to follow through with a correction of greater intensity (ie the "physical correction") If I did need to follow through, it would still be part of the 3rd step, as the zing happens in the natural process of applying the "physical correction". I'm not sure what you mean by "If the dog doesn't respond, this makes your program reactive .... [and] means your program will be driven by the dog" . I use +P and +R in my training program - my understanding is that this is what you use also. I disagree (in my experiences) that the dog loses "attitude" because my "reward base is lacking". As you have already stated,

I guess this would bring you to this what K9 said, And to my point that zing is an innefective correction, especailly off lead. No - sequence is: 1. I give command 2. Dog doesn't respond 3. The chain "zings" 4. If dog is corrected, the chain stops short (handler discretion) of a "physical correction". I can't understand why you can't see that for certain dogs, if the "zing" for a dog can equate to a "physical correction", then the zing simply serves in place of a physical correction. Not all corrections for all dogs in all circumstances have to be a "physical correction" to be effective for every situation. The "zing" if perceived as a correction by one dog, is no more or less effective off-leash than a "physical correction" on another ....

Haven't tried it, myszka, and wouldn't really want to, as, if the "zing" did not, in a particular circumstance (eg "loaded") serve as the effective correction, I need to be in a position to follow through with the physical correction. I doubt it would work, anyway, as I expect there is "feel" factor involved there too.

What is the point of doing the zing and not correcting on lead? Reminder? if so than how do you issue a reminder off lead? As I've mentioned in numerous posts, if the "zing" serves as an effective correction to the dog, I'd only be over-correcting the dog to insist on the physical, and if you read K9's posts as well, you'll see that he too agrees that over correcting would result in the dog "shutting down". No - the "zing" is not used to serve as a "reminder" - have I said so?

mine hears a command, do you shake a chain and give a command? No - as I've said before, I train by the same method as K9. I've also said that the general movement of the links do not serve as a correction. What's your point, myszka?

The same thing when your dog's off-leash and doesn't feel the physical correction.

K9 - You seem to now be stating my point. This is why, with the chain, I can use the advantage of a "zing" that has been previously paired by the dog to the correction, provided the "zing" is perceived by the dog as an "effective" correction. This avoids over-correction (follow through to physical correction) which, as I have stated earlier would only inhibit my dog's drive (or, as you now say "shut it down") if the dog & environment is not "loaded". I use "corrections" in the same way you do in training. As with all corrections, they are required to be "effective" for the dog - therefore the intensity varies from one dog to the next. My corrections are not "weakening" if the correction is "effective".

Which is what I've already been saying .... (refer next 2 Erny quotes) You're right - it's what the dog feels or hears, how they perceive it and whether it changes their "unwanted" behaviour, that is. It is where the dog has found the physical correction sufficiently aversive. Where the paired "zing" then becomes aversive enough to alter the dog's unwanted behaviour, the dog is spared of unneccessary, more physical applications. Yes - she's paired the zing to the correction and now, in many situations (not all, mind - depends on the environment she's in), the "zing" has become an adequate level of correction. .... and I have found this with some other "sensitive" dogs.

t-time ..... how lucky this dog is to have you come out to see him. You should be admired for your dedication and compassion. As to the dog's owners ... How long is the treatment to continue .... and (gulp) when do the owners return ( ) - going by the story thus far, I'm dubious they'll bother to continue with the care.

M-rose .... good on you. Pity about the "win" your dog got, but hey, life's full of ups and downs and we just have to get up and on with things and work to avoid the little errors along the way. Sometimes it's a case of two steps forward and one step back (although little fairy steps forward only are better). Great about the break through - and in a relatively short space of time too. Be happy for very little degrees of improvement and try not to go too far too fast (although sometimes it's very tempting, isn't it?!) I agree with Amhailte .. a prong collar (if you're not in Victoria) or headcollar for easier control is a good idea. Keep up the good work and keep us in touch with your progress.

Oh ..... the North pole. A bit too far. Near Santa, isn't it? Say hello to him for me! I've been good ....

Dr. Bruce Symes in Castlemain Vic. appears to have a deep understanding of the inner workings of a dog's stomach/digestive system/bowel. He is the inventor of "Vets All Natural" food products (I swear by them .... and I'm REALLY fussy) and he helped me with my girl's IBS (different to IBD) - special diet etc. Didn't think to look where you're located, so it might be out of the question, but could be worthwhile looking him up if you're able. (It was a 2 hour drive - each way - for me and a day away from work - I thought it was worth it.) Best wishes for the health of your girl.

Hey Nat ... glad to here something is "beginning" at least. Not intended to be argumentative - hope it's not taken that way .... but how do you know if this is not what she has learnt from her previous owners' efforts?

Precisely - his drive is obviously not blocked by the mere sound of the links as they move.

It doesn't have to be 10 times in one day, or in one hour or whatever. It's a "rule of thumb" thing. If you've been able to work at a point 10 times over without your dog reacting, then you should be ok to move the distance in a little. If you only do it once (for example), your dog's good behaviour might be a once off rather than the behaviour actually becoming modified. Does that make sense?

I can understand, M-rose ... bit if that what it takes? It's not like I'd suggest it be a forever thing - just bit by bit by bit ... And perhaps your dog will become keen to "move on" .... so getting further and further beyond the same old boring section might become, in part, your dog's reward for not aggressing.

Nat ... just one more thought - is it possible that her "shut down" behaviour when you move her into a desired position (ie "sit") is a "learnt" behaviour. In otherwords, could she have learnt that she doesn't have to do what you require if she exhibits this form of behaviour?

Exactly why DOL is here

Sorry I can't help any further with suggestions that aren't already covered ..... but it sounds like you have it in hand and are working in the right direction. Good luck with it, Nat - I'm sure the "light bulb" will switch on and once it does you may well find you'll have a hard time switching it off! (Not that you'd want to!)