Just Midol

No shit sherlock At least she is admitting she was wrong & no longer agrees with visual identification.

Ohhh, yes, that'd make more sense. From the way you worded your posts it sounded as though you were doing the "It's not a correction unless I correct him" thing that some positive trainers do. btw, self correcting causes dogs to get collar smart. You'd really be better off using a prong or e-collar. Prongs are like power steering and e-collars you need a thumb

Honestly, from your post, you're dog is being corrected. If its a martingale and you don't pull but he reaches the end of the lead then he is self correcting himself.

I think you just assumed something you shouldn't have. In any case, who would prefer they suffer? Most positive trainers will fit a head collar or anti-pull harness in that situation (whether they are positive tools is a separate discussion). Ahhh, so they are hypocrites then. :rolleyes:

A perfect example of why sometimes, a correction collar IS a great tool first up, with nothing else tried. If I had buggered shoulders, I'd correct the behaviour as fast as I possibly could without causing me harm. Some people would probably prefer you suffer though and hurt yourself whilst using a slower method.

Yeah, that's normal. Get some entire fish, scale them and lop off the head and run them under hot water. Do this for a few fish then stop running them under hot water (to slightly cook the flesh), take it slowly and don't move to the next stage till they are eating. Then just eventually stop scaling and stop loping off the head and then they are fine. I taught Axle to eat them like this. Montu is just so food oriented that he'll eat entire unscaled fish without any coaching.

Innotek took the RSPCA to court in Melbourne over the RSPCAS claims. http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/holliday.htm So the only way they can discredit the collar is to simulate poor timing. And I don't think it simulates poor timing at all, poor timing would still result in the correction occurring afterwards (which isn't even how we use e-collars) where random timing would have the stimulation occuring either before or after, there is no uniformity at all. Then limit who can sell them, and they can ensure people are appropriately trained. Though, you realise that every training tool has the capacity to result in harm and how many people are willing to spend $1000 on a training aid (from within Aussie) without getting some assistance on how to use it? It is pretty hard to pick a level that's far too high, but it is relatively easy to go a few levels higher (which wouldn't result in much more stress.) ETA: Whoops, sorry cosmo, didn't see your post.

I can beat that! 19kg sibe, 2 family blocks of chocolate and no issues at all. Sibes have ridiculously slow metabolisms though. Great Danes are about 60kg right? If Gizmo was 60kg with the same metabolism he has now he'd still only be eating around 600g of meat and bones a day, in total.

Lmao, you're not brain washed I've researched his methods in my own time, for two reasons (though one reason no longer applies.) Initially, I wanted to make sure it wasn't hurting my dog, now I don't bother with this reason as I know his methods won't hurt them and the second is to understand them and try and learn about other methods, but really, in drive, neutralization and the e-collar I prefer his methods over the others I have found. The only thing I had trouble with was getting used to looking at it from the dogs view, rather than a human view. Corvus, based on that last post get a Husky and socialise the crap out of it Your dreams will come true

Exactly. The findings aren't applicable. Hitting a dog with a steel pole and giving a prong collar correction are both aversives, but they're not the same and a study showing hitting my dog with a pole hurts and causes stress is not applicable to the usage of a prong collar. they are completely different corrections of different intensities. Which is why my collar has 128 levels, so I can find the right level for any dog. Generally = always. Not a single study has been done on low level, and medium & high level are irrelevant. The study they mention is complete crap anyway. Who puts an e-collar on their dogs feet? When using the e-collar as a correction, you use the nic button which delivers the shock for 1/10th (or was it 1/100th) of a second as well, they held down continous at medium levels for one second. I've never seen ANYONE advocate training a dog using the e-collar via this method. Who is going to fund the study? This part of one study made me wonder wtf they were trying to prove: Why did they even do that? Since when have trainers ever randomly issued corrections to their dogs... No, the study proved that if you're an absolute moron (and I include those who organised this study) you'll screw up your dogs. The study was designed to fail, it was designed to "prove" e-collars are "terrible" As a zoologist, I'd expect you to see that these studies are very flawed... Unless you don't know how to use an e-collar.

The papers released on e-collar use only cover medium and high intensity. We use low levels so they really aren't applicable to our use of them, all the studies have been done by those who oppose e-collar use so imo they left out low intensity use as they know the results won't further their cause - but then I am cynical of them. I have no doubt that even low levels result in raised cortisol levels, but then I think all training does.

Negative Reinforcement. Someone might be able to achieve it at the same pace on my dog, but I can't... So for me, using the e-collar is quicker which to me equals less stress. Obviously this has limits, I am sure I could stop my dog by jumping by simply smacking it over the head as hard as I can with a piece of wood once or twice but that's not very nice of me.

True. But if you break them down into the individual behaviors and look at the learning of each individual behaviour. Keep in mind when you use the e-collar you do almost the exact same steps as you otherwise would have. I still use a clicker + food when I use my e-collar, so the e-collar is an additional tool, which makes the time taken pass quicker (as they learn quicker). If they get the same rewards, for the same things, but the e-collar is added to speed things up then I don't see how there is any other explanation than your expectations are clearer to the dog, he has figured out what you're requesting quicker.

I think in some situations their could be a relationship between a longer time frame and effects on the dog. It also depends on the use of the word 'stress' and the training methods employed. If the expectations are clear and the dog is appropriately rewarded, then the fact that one method is 'slower' should not be such a problem. I don't think the time taken is the stressor, but any 'grey' areas definitely have the potential to increase anxiety. But if x method on a dog y will achieve the behaviour in 2 weeks, and z method in dog y would achieve the behaviour in 3 weeks doesn't that say that the slower method of y isn't as clear and has more grey areas than method x?

Lily carrys on like a pork chop if I walk Gizmo without here.

I don't consider standing on the lead a correction IF the dog does not make an upward movement, the minute pressure is applied after the action I consider it a correction. Though, in regards to dodging. If I were to stand out there with Montu and dodge him when he jumps (he still does a bit but I don't really care all that much) he'd have huge extinction bursts which means the behaviour would get worse before it gets better. Normal jumping is fine, but if I were to dodge (I've done it once before) he ends up leaping off the ground, I can dodge a few but he'd get one on me eventually and a leaping GSD even as a puppy is not something you want hitting you :p. I've managed to drop his jumping down just via verbal corrections and a physical correction with my hand (forcible grabbing his scruff and putting him on the ground) but ignoring/dodging wouldn't work, and imo, a purely positive method here could be dangerous so I've decided a combination is more likely to succeed without injury to myself, or the dog. Part of the issue though is I let him do it a few times, and probably rewarded it with pats so it's breaking an existing learnt behaviour.

All 3 of my dogs and Axle knew how to get out of the pool, but Axle is probably the only one I'd have ever trusted to lock in the pool area, even then, only if I could see the pool. Just very risky.

Corvus said that they had no interest in judging. Why are you hammering at this? What is the injury to you in someone talking about their own personal experience? Is there fundamentally a problem with experienced people saying they prefer to avoid correction? I don't think there is. Ultimately we are dealing in personal values with a lot of this stuff, and that goes for the pro-correction anecdata as much as anything else. Edited to fix the quoting html Are you blind to the reasons why people get defensive? She is telling us we control our dogs out of fear...

My dogs don't fear me.

Honestly, with a hard dog like Montu I think withholding treats and no corrections would be more stressful.

I wonder if in countries such as France, where dogs are allowed to go out with their owners almost everywhere whether they practice neutralisation as a matter of course. I'd say probably.

holy batman. Does that mean a puppy that would end up @ 30kg you'd feed 10kg of food a day? I think I misunderstood

I restarted my two weeks pre-use again on the 1st of January and I'm going to do it properly this time.

I doubt water spraying will override prey drive.

It's not easy teaching dogs to eat fish. Axle took about 5 fish before he figured it out, I feed with scales though. Montu who is food obsessed figure it out instantly. Lily and Gizmo will only eat fillets.