Being The Leader

[Erny]

Avoiding fights isn't about showing them who's boss or being a better leader.

I don't think that's what any one here has said and yet it seems to be taking that twist by some meandering of interpretation, I think. Having respect/leadership does assist with being able to manage the dogs.

[corvus]

Corvus, when your dog responded to a verbal interruption and you could call her away from the pup, I don't see that teaching her that getting snarky with pup is an unwanted behaviour without a consequence for doing so.

Sorry, that's not what I was referring to. If I verbally interrupted her before she did anything, then there was nothing to punish, i.e. no consequence for the behaviour because it didn't occur. But as I've said, I found it very difficult to interrupt before it occurred consistently, so several times a day she would snark and I would give her an instant time out. She got to the point where she would snark, and I would only have to look at her and she'd cower and head for the nearest door. I stopped doing it because it was clearly not working. Either it wasn't punishing enough or I was punishing the wrong thing. She seemed to have the association between snarking and me getting cross with her, which I suspect was more punishing than the time out itself, but it didn't change the behaviour. In fact, I believe it made it worse, creating more tension than there already was, which made her more tetchy. She was quite a sensitive dog.

You can manage a behaviour with diversion and luring and sometimes it works depending on the situation, but I don't think it's as reliable in the crunch as a double reinforcer where the dog has learned the good and the bad.

I'm not talking about managing behaviour with luring and diversion. I'm talking about managing the environment so the behaviour never actually occurs in the first place, thus diversions aren't actually needed. My goal in managing behaviour is controlling as much as possible what my dogs have success with and what they don't. I am happy to let my younger dog get a little stressed and "reward" good coping skills by making sure they work for him. I like to encourage my dogs to find calm, non-aggressive coping strategies. I do that by managing their environment. I don't expect more of them than I think they can handle. If I do, I sure as hell don't punish it when they fail. That is my mistake, not theirs. The so-called double reinforcer is IMO fraught with difficulties. What behaviour are you actually punishing?

If we didn't provide a negative consequence for trying to climb a fence, apart from managing the behaviour mechanically, how would you condition and train the dog not to fence climb with positive motivation???. Bit off topic from aggression, but it's relevent as a reconditioning process of unwanted behaviour.

"Managing the behaviour mechanically" IS managing. If the dog physically can't practice a behaviour, it tends to become extinct. That has been my experience. My dogs have never tried climbing a fence. Our fences are impossible for them to climb, so they seem to see fences in general as an impenetrable barrier. Why should learning that climbing fences results in negative things happening and learning that climbing fences results in nothing of interest happening have any bearing on whether a dog climbs a new fence they have never seen? IMO, if I want it good and gone forever right now, I will punish it and I will do a damn good job of it. I find I rarely want that, though. Why bother and risk all the fallout that comes from using punishments if I can just whack up a physical barrier and let the behaviour die a natural death? The answer to me is I will only bother if it's a behaviour that is very dangerous or expensive. I have not found extinction to be particularly unreliable. My Erik is an outrageously optimistic dog and if he's tried it once he will probably try it again sooner or later, whether I punish it or just let it go extinct. If I can't afford a mistake, I don't depend on training.

[MissMaddy]

Ok, so just to make things clear.

There has NOT been a fight between these 2 bitches, and since writing this post and enforcing stronger boundaries (plus bringing the e-collar back into use with the GSD bitch who knows what it is and how it works), the behaviour I was worried about has almost disappeared. The GSD bitch does have insecurities with other dogs, having been unfairly dominated by 1-2 dogs at a crucial age, so the e-collar has been brilliant to distract her and call her back when she's not so sure if she acts defensive (which she only does with dogs she doesn't know) or starts to see another dog running that puts her into prey drive, in which the e-collar was a godsend. I AM NOT using it as high levels (in fact her working level is 7 on a dogtra) as there was never any serious posturing, and the rotty has been reminded by the stronger boundaries that she is the submissive puppy and there's no challenging that.

Neither bitch is confrontational by nature, and the rotty was on of the more submissive in the litter. The GSD is also not dominant or dog agressive, and has never been one to start fights or get involved in stuff like that.

Now I feel we're at the stage that I can hopefully manage them so that a fight never even looks close.

I will be going to see someone, and four paws was who I was thinking as they're a much shorter drive than anyone else. Either that, or I'll do a video consult with Steve. Having just had Christmas, etc, and been on night shift, I haven't been able to do anything as yet, and I'm sure some of my posts haven't made a whole lot of sense (like this one)!

[abed]

I heard that you were experienced with working lines GSD's and thought perhaps you may conduct protection training in that case.

I have one myself and she will take a sleeve, but it's just fun. Not many working-line dogs in Tassie.

No, there isn't many in Tassie, that's where your name came up, the trainer did have their own dog I recall in the conversation ;) Sleeve work is fun, just a big game of tug and the dogs enjoy it too

Edited January 1, 2011 by abed

[abed]

Ok, so just to make things clear.

There has NOT been a fight between these 2 bitches, and since writing this post and enforcing stronger boundaries (plus bringing the e-collar back into use with the GSD bitch who knows what it is and how it works), the behaviour I was worried about has almost disappeared. The GSD bitch does have insecurities with other dogs, having been unfairly dominated by 1-2 dogs at a crucial age, so the e-collar has been brilliant to distract her and call her back when she's not so sure if she acts defensive (which she only does with dogs she doesn't know) or starts to see another dog running that puts her into prey drive, in which the e-collar was a godsend. I AM NOT using it as high levels (in fact her working level is 7 on a dogtra) as there was never any serious posturing, and the rotty has been reminded by the stronger boundaries that she is the submissive puppy and there's no challenging that.

Neither bitch is confrontational by nature, and the rotty was on of the more submissive in the litter. The GSD is also not dominant or dog agressive, and has never been one to start fights or get involved in stuff like that.

Now I feel we're at the stage that I can hopefully manage them so that a fight never even looks close.

I will be going to see someone, and four paws was who I was thinking as they're a much shorter drive than anyone else. Either that, or I'll do a video consult with Steve. Having just had Christmas, etc, and been on night shift, I haven't been able to do anything as yet, and I'm sure some of my posts haven't made a whole lot of sense (like this one)!

That's virtually the same result I had with my middle GSD with the Ecollar in similar circumstances What Dogtra are you using may I ask, is it the 127 level model???

[abed]

Avoiding fights isn't about showing them who's boss or being a better leader.

I don't think that's what any one here has said and yet it seems to be taking that twist by some meandering of interpretation, I think. Having respect/leadership does assist with being able to manage the dogs.

I agree Erny

[abed]

'corvus' date='1st Jan 2011 - 02:54 AM' post='5054512']

"Managing the behaviour mechanically" IS managing. If the dog physically can't practice a behaviour, it tends to become extinct. That has been my experience. My dogs have never tried climbing a fence. Our fences are impossible for them to climb, so they seem to see fences in general as an impenetrable barrier. Why should learning that climbing fences results in negative things happening and learning that climbing fences results in nothing of interest happening have any bearing on whether a dog climbs a new fence they have never seen? IMO, if I want it good and gone forever right now, I will punish it and I will do a damn good job of it. I find I rarely want that, though. Why bother and risk all the fallout that comes from using punishments if I can just whack up a physical barrier and let the behaviour die a natural death? The answer to me is I will only bother if it's a behaviour that is very dangerous or expensive. I have not found extinction to be particularly unreliable. My Erik is an outrageously optimistic dog and if he's tried it once he will probably try it again sooner or later, whether I punish it or just let it go extinct. If I can't afford a mistake, I don't depend on training

.

A good example of behaviour extinction with mechanical barriers is the front door. 99% of the time the front door is closed and the dog doesn't bother with it. Open the door and the dog is out running down the street So, having a closed door as the default hasn't taught the dog to respect the door line and stay inside automatically???. The dog has to be trained to respect the door line and exhibit a particular behaviour when the door is opened. Management of the dog's instinct to run out the door by keeping the door closed hasn't provided reliable obedience, sure the dog doesn't get out, but the behaviour to get out is only managed and is essentially unreliable. To test that model, open the door and see what happens???.

IMHO if the result needs to be a dog that won't cross the door line and escape reliably, managing the notion to escape with a closed door doesn't reinforce the desired behaviour or teach the dog stay inside the house by default???.

As a dog handler, the dog has to trust your judgement and make a call in the dog's best interests. I disagree if done properly that punishment causes fallout, infact I believe it's quite the opposite. The dog wearing an Ecollar for example, the front door is opened and out he goes, the handler commands "NO, HERE", the dog ignors the command and the handler applies a stimulation for disobendience. The handler told the dog "NO" to prevent the aversive, the dog chose to ignor and suffered an unpleasant experience as a consequence. The dog when done properly, doesn't think the handler has done something nasty to him, the dog learns that the handler is trying to protect him from aversion and obeying the handler results in the best outcome and learns to trust the handlers judgement to make the right call for the dog.

Where fallout occurs as a good example is jump training which is something trained to extreme often in working dogs. You set the dog up for success so that if you command "jump", the dog has confidence that he/she can perform the manouver successfully. If you command "jump" where the dog miscues or attempts a jump too advanced for it's experience level, slips, falls or hurts it'self, the dog then doesn't trust the handlers judgement and will often set the dog back with hesititation or avoidance and fallout. The dog thinks, you told me "jump", I did that and hurt myself.........why did you let that happen to me???. Leading a dog into a situation of failure where it suffers and aversive is far different than a dog suffering an aversive when handler has commanded an alternative in the dog's best interest and he/she has chosen to ignor it IMHO ;)

This situation is very obvious with security dogs worked by different handlers or a dog that has a new handler. Under the control of one handler the dog trusts, the dog's performance is outstanding. With a new handler the dog is often half the dog it was until the trust and bond is established for confidence to perform tasks of extreme nature which the dog has been trained to perform. This doesn't show up as often with a sporting dog where jumps and manouvers are over a set course, the dog knows the routine and has confidence to perform it successfully under the control of any handler virtually. On the street where a dog has to work in a different environment on a daily basis like a police dog for instance, handler trust is absolutely essential for extraction of the dog's maximum potential.

Edited January 1, 2011 by abed

[MissMaddy]

Ok, so just to make things clear.

There has NOT been a fight between these 2 bitches, and since writing this post and enforcing stronger boundaries (plus bringing the e-collar back into use with the GSD bitch who knows what it is and how it works), the behaviour I was worried about has almost disappeared. The GSD bitch does have insecurities with other dogs, having been unfairly dominated by 1-2 dogs at a crucial age, so the e-collar has been brilliant to distract her and call her back when she's not so sure if she acts defensive (which she only does with dogs she doesn't know) or starts to see another dog running that puts her into prey drive, in which the e-collar was a godsend. I AM NOT using it as high levels (in fact her working level is 7 on a dogtra) as there was never any serious posturing, and the rotty has been reminded by the stronger boundaries that she is the submissive puppy and there's no challenging that.

Neither bitch is confrontational by nature, and the rotty was on of the more submissive in the litter. The GSD is also not dominant or dog agressive, and has never been one to start fights or get involved in stuff like that.

Now I feel we're at the stage that I can hopefully manage them so that a fight never even looks close.

I will be going to see someone, and four paws was who I was thinking as they're a much shorter drive than anyone else. Either that, or I'll do a video consult with Steve. Having just had Christmas, etc, and been on night shift, I haven't been able to do anything as yet, and I'm sure some of my posts haven't made a whole lot of sense (like this one)!

That's virtually the same result I had with my middle GSD with the Ecollar in similar circumstances What Dogtra are you using may I ask, is it the 127 level model???

Yep, it has the 127 levels with the blue backlight on the display. It was the best investment I've made, as I couldn't let my girl offlead with dogs I didn't know without it, as her recall was very poor. Now her recall, even without it, is so much more reliable (although she does need tuning up every now and then).

Avoiding fights isn't about showing them who's boss or being a better leader.

I don't think that's what any one here has said and yet it seems to be taking that twist by some meandering of interpretation, I think. Having respect/leadership does assist with being able to manage the dogs.

I agree Erny ;)

That's my thinking, as I know of people who run multiple dogs together of the same and different sexes and ages, without any issues because of how they manage them. I know of one in particular who runs something like 10+ (possibly 20) GSDs together overseas, feeds them together, gives them bones together, and never an issue. I'm not that ambitious, as mine aren't even run together unsupervised, but I do believe that these girls have the right temperaments to get along if managed together (this was why I took the rotty girl on, as I felt she had the right temperament to fit in with my first 2).

[corvus]

A good example of behaviour extinction with mechanical barriers is the front door.

I hope the OP doesn't mind this going off topic.

A closed door is not a good example of a behaviour extinction with mechanical barriers, really. A dog's world is full of doors that are usually closed, but when opened offer access to different areas, some of them super fun. Why should one door that almost never opens not follow the same rules as every other door in their life? My dogs will happily walk through an open gate, but the gate is not the barrier, the fence is. Gates are how you get in and out of fences, just like doors are how you get in and out of rooms and houses.

IMHO if the result needs to be a dog that won't cross the door line and escape reliably, managing the notion to escape with a closed door doesn't reinforce the desired behaviour or teach the dog stay inside the house by default???.

No, it doesn't. But if the result needs to be that a dog won't try to break through a wall, well, solid walls do a pretty good job of that in most normal cases.

Leading a dog into a situation of failure where it suffers and aversive is far different than a dog suffering an aversive when handler has commanded an alternative in the dog's best interest and he/she has chosen to ignor it IMHO

Is it? What if you lead a dog into a situation where it can't or doesn't know to pay attention to your cue and then you punish them for "ignoring" you?

[Aidan3]

A closed door is not a good example of a behaviour extinction with mechanical barriers, really. A dog's world is full of doors that are usually closed, but when opened offer access to different areas, some of them super fun.

Apart from that, the premise also has a flaw. We cannot say that we have removed a dog's desire for rushing through a door or jumping a fence just because we have punished it. We have punished that behaviour, not the "desire" to do it. Big difference, especially when you are talking about dogs who can think up new ways of solving their problems, and especially in the context of dog aggression (this thread). One of my dogs was trained not to jump the veggie garden fence. The next time the ball rolled under it, she simply ripped the wire off it

Leading a dog into a situation of failure where it suffers and aversive is far different than a dog suffering an aversive when handler has commanded an alternative in the dog's best interest and he/she has chosen to ignor it IMHO

Is it? What if you lead a dog into a situation where it can't or doesn't know to pay attention to your cue and then you punish them for "ignoring" you?

I've never known where to draw the line. If you choose to punish a dog, do it with reducing the unwanted behaviour in mind - not as some sort of anthropomorphic disciplinary action for an assumption you have made of a non-verbal animal.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Aidan2

[Kelpie-i]

One of the 'secrets' to creating workable dynamics within a multi-dog household is to become proficient in micro-managing.

[MissMaddy]

One of the 'secrets' to creating workable dynamics within a multi-dog household is to become proficient in micro-managing.

Thanks kelpie, and I will be in touch with you soon to try and organise something if that's ok. Just have so much to organise, feels like it's never ending!

[bedazzledx2]

Regarding doorways....our front door is usually closed, and as part of the toilet training regime I always ask 'do you want to go out?' and open the door for them. Its been really hot and horrible here for the last few days but last night there was a lovely easterly blowing so I propped open the front door to help cool the house. Both dogs stayed in the vicinity of the doorway but made no move to go through...I didn't care if they did as its all fenced so I never commanded anything. What was really interesting is a bit later Jasper wanted to go out so he gave his normal little bark to ask! I was most impressed! I have never used anything other than management and praise.

[corvus]

I've never known where to draw the line. If you choose to punish a dog, do it with reducing the unwanted behaviour in mind - not as some sort of anthropomorphic disciplinary action for an assumption you have made of a non-verbal animal.

I think far fewer behaviours are suitable for punishment than most people seem to. I think that most behaviour is not discrete. One behaviour kind of bleeds into another and I am very leery of punishing something when it could at that very moment be morphing into something else that hasn't become apparent to me yet. I don't like to punish a behaviour that I am making an assumption the dog is entirely focused on. It bothers me to think I might be accidentally punishing something else instead, or creating a negative association with something else the dog is aware of that I am not at that moment. In my mind, a behaviour that is suitable for punishment should be quite discrete and absorbing. Like, if I can distract the dog from it and he doesn't go right back to it immediately, I don't want to punish it. I don't really need to, because if that's the case I can reinforce an incompatible behaviour instead. Abed and I will have to agree to disagree on whether there is fallout for punishments if they are done correctly. To me the question is judging what the fallout is likely to be and whether I can live with it. There is nothing worse in training than deciding I can't live with the fallout after I've already created it.

[abed]

A closed door is not a good example of a behaviour extinction with mechanical barriers, really. A dog's world is full of doors that are usually closed, but when opened offer access to different areas, some of them super fun.

Apart from that, the premise also has a flaw. We cannot say that we have removed a dog's desire for rushing through a door or jumping a fence just because we have punished it. We have punished that behaviour, not the "desire" to do it. Big difference, especially when you are talking about dogs who can think up new ways of solving their problems, and especially in the context of dog aggression (this thread). One of my dogs was trained not to jump the veggie garden fence. The next time the ball rolled under it, she simply ripped the wire off it

Leading a dog into a situation of failure where it suffers and aversive is far different than a dog suffering an aversive when handler has commanded an alternative in the dog's best interest and he/she has chosen to ignor it IMHO

Is it? What if you lead a dog into a situation where it can't or doesn't know to pay attention to your cue and then you punish them for "ignoring" you?

I've never known where to draw the line. If you choose to punish a dog, do it with reducing the unwanted behaviour in mind - not as some sort of anthropomorphic disciplinary action for an assumption you have made of a non-verbal animal.

Punishment is about ignoring a known and conditioned command. Some argue that in some circumstances the dog doesn't understand the command or doesn't hear the command.........perhaps, but after receiving punishment for disobeying, the hearing miraculously improves..........I would argue that the dog in the circumstances made the choice to disobey, as the distraction was of higher value than the handlers request. Having said that, you could have a situation where a dog has been taught to sit with a food or toy reward and conditioned to be shown the food or toy, told to sit and rewarded for compliance which becomes the "game" or the format of the exercise which the dog has done 100 times. The owner then takes the dog down the street on leash,no food or toy and commands "sit" and the dog disobeys???. My belief here is that although the dog has sat on command 100 times with a food or toy reward, the dog has learned a format, "you show me the reward, I sit, and you reward me", but the dog has not effectively been taught to understand that the physical "sit' is the essence of the exercise. To punish the dog then would be unfair IMHO.

If on the other hand, the dog will sit on leash on command, knows the exercise and physical requirement having done that 100 times but in one instance, the dog disobeys the sit command by focusing on a distraction across the road, I would then provide a leash correction for disobeying

Actually,the dog does hear the command when distracted thinking about it more deeply: My format to a punishment is a command, "sit" dog disobeys I follow with "NO" then a correction. Now, often the dog will sit on the 'NO" command to avoid the correction. If he didn't hear the sit command intitially, why did he sit on the no, why didn't he drop, shake hands, or offer another known behaviour??? He sat to avoid a correction and heard you the first time by giving the correct response hearing the NO command and avoiding what comes next for non compliance.

Edited January 2, 2011 by abed

[abed]

I've never known where to draw the line. If you choose to punish a dog, do it with reducing the unwanted behaviour in mind - not as some sort of anthropomorphic disciplinary action for an assumption you have made of a non-verbal animal.

I think far fewer behaviours are suitable for punishment than most people seem to. I think that most behaviour is not discrete. One behaviour kind of bleeds into another and I am very leery of punishing something when it could at that very moment be morphing into something else that hasn't become apparent to me yet. I don't like to punish a behaviour that I am making an assumption the dog is entirely focused on. It bothers me to think I might be accidentally punishing something else instead, or creating a negative association with something else the dog is aware of that I am not at that moment. In my mind, a behaviour that is suitable for punishment should be quite discrete and absorbing. Like, if I can distract the dog from it and he doesn't go right back to it immediately, I don't want to punish it. I don't really need to, because if that's the case I can reinforce an incompatible behaviour instead. Abed and I will have to agree to disagree on whether there is fallout for punishments if they are done correctly. To me the question is judging what the fallout is likely to be and whether I can live with it. There is nothing worse in training than deciding I can't live with the fallout after I've already created it.

Fallout has a lot do with the genetic nerve of the dog too. Working dog trainers/handlers prefer dogs with "hard nerve" which is often misconstrued as meaning tough and aggressive........it means resilience to aversive stimulous and the faster the dog recovers from aversion, the harder the nerve platform of the particular dog. This is where I have found a lot of pet dog training goes wrong with working breeds worrying about fallout with hard nerved dogs. Any GSD, Rottweiller, Belgian Shephered and some Labradors, Jack Russell's etc can have extremely hard nerve and can take a good correction in the learning phase of training. It amounts to the trainer having the ability to assess the dog correctly in application of the most suitable training regime IMHO

[corvus]

Punishment is about ignoring a known and conditioned command. Some argue that in some circumstances the dog doesn't understand the command or doesn't hear the command.........perhaps, but after receiving punishment for disobeying, the hearing miraculously improves..........I would argue that the dog in the circumstances made the choice to disobey, as the distraction was of higher value than the handlers request.

But what are you actually punishing? If behaviour occurs in response to a stimulus, and the stimulus is your cue, and the dog responds by ignoring it, how can you be sure the cue was a stimulus at that moment at all? Perhaps what you have punished is looking at a person across the road, or sniffing an interesting scent. If you suppress responses to those stimuli, then mightn't an observed improvement in response to your cue simply be a result of most of the usual distracting stimuli now being associated with aversives? A cue from you may even take on the role of a safety signal, being one of the few things that aren't associated with punishment. I'm sure you see improvements with this method, but I question your reasoning why.

As for nerve... I think it's an excuse. Whether a dog can "take" a tougher punishment or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether I choose to use a punishment or not. I know exactly where both my dogs' thresholds lie, and if I chose to use a punishment on either I would take that into account in choosing which punishment to use, how to use it, and when to quit. But just because my younger dog has a higher resilience to punishments than my older dog doesn't mean I punish my younger dog more. I don't "correct" either of them, and I don't find that I have a lot of trouble with reliability. My dogs are as reliable as my criteria are strict.

[abed]

Punishment is about ignoring a known and conditioned command. Some argue that in some circumstances the dog doesn't understand the command or doesn't hear the command.........perhaps, but after receiving punishment for disobeying, the hearing miraculously improves..........I would argue that the dog in the circumstances made the choice to disobey, as the distraction was of higher value than the handlers request.

But what are you actually punishing? If behaviour occurs in response to a stimulus, and the stimulus is your cue, and the dog responds by ignoring it, how can you be sure the cue was a stimulus at that moment at all? Perhaps what you have punished is looking at a person across the road, or sniffing an interesting scent. If you suppress responses to those stimuli, then mightn't an observed improvement in response to your cue simply be a result of most of the usual distracting stimuli now being associated with aversives? A cue from you may even take on the role of a safety signal, being one of the few things that aren't associated with punishment. I'm sure you see improvements with this method, but I question your reasoning why.

As for nerve... I think it's an excuse. Whether a dog can "take" a tougher punishment or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether I choose to use a punishment or not. I know exactly where both my dogs' thresholds lie, and if I chose to use a punishment on either I would take that into account in choosing which punishment to use, how to use it, and when to quit. But just because my younger dog has a higher resilience to punishments than my older dog doesn't mean I punish my younger dog more. I don't "correct" either of them, and I don't find that I have a lot of trouble with reliability. My dogs are as reliable as my criteria are strict.

I understand what you are saying Corvus, but I have never found a conclusive finding to the concept of punishing the wrong behaviour. Many times I have corrected a dog for ignoring a "come" command when sniffing and interesting scent, but in doing so, hasn't degraded the dog's ability to track in a working role or go into sniffing avoidance fearing a correction. I have corrected dogs heavily for ignoring a "leave it" command when focused on a decoy or a person across the street, but the "who's that" command for the dog to re-focus doesn't reduce the dog's intensity or alertness. Dogs are opportunists I believe, and given the opportunity to disobey for greater reward than compliance, they will take it if they can get away with it.

Handler fallout from applying punishments was largely a fear campaign used by positive trainers as a reason for choosing their training methods as a marketing exercise that worries people to the point of never applying a punishment on that basis which from my expereicne is completely over exaggerated and usually happens with heavy handed handlers of soft dogs. Fallout isn't a result of applying a punishment IMHO, it's the result of applying a punishment that exceeds the dog's nerve strength in other words, a training error. Generally though, the higher the nerve strength, the greater the level of punishment required to cause an effect which can be measured in numbers with an Ecollar.

The OP told us that her dog works at a level 7 on a Dogtra Collar. My older boy works at 15, the middle one at 25 and my full working line dog at 75 which demonstrates the difference in nerve strength versus an aversive stimulus.

[MissMaddy]

Please tell me we're not going to have a show vs working line debate again.

No other correction actually worked for my girl initially where other dogs were concerned (or the 2 cats that used to be next door who teased her), you could give her a pretty strong correction and she'd act like you were an annoying fly, if you even got that much acknolwedgement when she really went into drive. Had I of put the e-collar on her and gone straight to high level distraction, she would have been somewhere up around 50-70 (which is why I did so much work with lower level distractions). Now she knows that by responding to the lower level stim, that it doesn't go any higher (which she DID need the first time we moved onto high distraction as there wasn't enough medium distraction for her- I did need to turn it up once to around 70 when she unexpectedly saw the next door neighbours cat she hated).

Thank goodness I found dol when I did, as well as some decent trainers and behaviourists (after I had let her socialise in all the wrong ways as my earlier GSDs had been much lower drive), otherwise she never could have been off lead around other dogs she didn't know.

But anyway, this is COMPLETELY off track, so back to the topic at hand. What are some strategies others use when running multiple dogs together in managing them and any possible conflicts?

[abed]

Please tell me we're not going to have a show vs working line debate again.

No other correction actually worked for my girl initially where other dogs were concerned (or the 2 cats that used to be next door who teased her), you could give her a pretty strong correction and she'd act like you were an annoying fly, if you even got that much acknolwedgement when she really went into drive. Had I of put the e-collar on her and gone straight to high level distraction, she would have been somewhere up around 50-70 (which is why I did so much work with lower level distractions). Now she knows that by responding to the lower level stim, that it doesn't go any higher (which she DID need the first time we moved onto high distraction as there wasn't enough medium distraction for her- I did need to turn it up once to around 70 when she unexpectedly saw the next door neighbours cat she hated).

Thank goodness I found dol when I did, as well as some decent trainers and behaviourists (after I had let her socialise in all the wrong ways as my earlier GSDs had been much lower drive), otherwise she never could have been off lead around other dogs she didn't know.

But anyway, this is COMPLETELY off track, so back to the topic at hand. What are some strategies others use when running multiple dogs together in managing them and any possible conflicts?

To be honest MissMaddy, your posts are confusing as to what the situation is to receive anything of value other than suggesting a behaviourists consultation???. The 4 year old GSD is insecure around other dogs and you couldn't have her off leash until Ecollar training meaning what, she would run away from other dogs and you couldn't catch her, or she would attack them, but she is apparanty not dog aggressive according to what you have told us, but you are concerned with a fight breaking out between her and the Rotty pup which doesn't really paint a logical picture of the siuation IMHO:confused:

Would I be correct in saying, the GSD is ultimately dog aggressive and was the reason for the Ecollar training as she was untrustworthy around other dogs and could lash out from insecurity and given her history, she is causing concern displaying aggressive posturing towards the Rotty pup and you are concerned that she has the potential to nail the pup if things got nasty between them???.

Edited January 2, 2011 by abed