Prong Collars

[MonElite]

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

mine hears a command, do you shake a chain and give a command?

[Erny]

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

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?

[MonElite]

What's your point, myszka?

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?

[MonElite]

Just to clarify Erny.

I did the same as you, my dog considered a zing of a chain a correction (we are still to agree to dissagree on the differences of the sound).

So I have used the zing effectivelly on lead. Well it went all out the door as the zing has no effect off lead.

My super smart (yes this has been established before in another threat) dobe is collar smart, lead smart, zing/no zing smart.

Hence I find the zing an innefective overal method.

And to follow from that - I'm looking for alternatives.

Edited June 14, 2005 by myszka

[Steve K9Pro]

E:

My corrections are not "weakening" if the correction is "effective".

K9: Ok, I have the issue with the "IF" part of the sentence.

Not questioning you at all, just when you say "if the dog..."

I see a picture of you give a command, zing the chain, the dog doesnt comply & then you correct.

This is an out of sequence event as far as Im concerned.

[Erny]

What's your point, myszka?

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?

[MonElite]

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,

Would I be correct than that the zing would have the same effect if you put the flat collar on your dog and zinged the chain in your hand?

[Erny]

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.

[MonElite]

I see a picture of you give a command, zing the chain, the dog doesnt comply & then you correct.

This is an out of sequence event as far as Im concerned.

I guess this would bring you to this what K9 said,

And to my point that zing is an innefective correction, especailly off lead.

[Erny]

I see a picture of you give a command, zing the chain, the dog doesnt comply & then you correct.

This is an out of sequence event as far as Im concerned.

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 ....

[Steve K9Pro]

E:

. 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".

K9: I know this may seem to you that Im splitting hairs, but as you have pointed out the avoidance method of dog training is a 4 step process, my steps are

1. command.

2. correction.

3. compliance.

4. reward.

Yours has no reward, so no +R.

Other than that, you said

"I give command, dog doesnt respond"

If you mean, "IF the dog doesnt respond", this makes your training program reactive, not pro active, this means your program will be driven by the dog...

E:

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",

K9: I certainly can see that it can serve as a correction, its just that sometimes it will serve as a correction & sometimes it wont, when it doesnt, you need to react again & give a physical correction.

Every time I issue a command, I use the same 4 steps above, every time.

Not,

* I give command

* Dog doesn't respond

* The chain "zings"

* The hanlder reacs & gives physical correction.

* Compliance

* Reward

Its getting complicated & you want to keep it simple.

You will find that if the dog drops attitude, looses drive etc with correction, your reward base is lacking.

Thats been my experience anyway.

[Erny]

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,

K9:  applying a correction that is excessive will extinguish the drive of any dog.

[MonElite]

I'll give you a perfect description of the reactive program.

We finished training/walk/run and my dog needs to get in the car. he is tired and I have a 4WD so its a bit high to jump up.

I open the door say hop, he stares at me and the height of the booth and doesnt comply. So I check him and majority of the time he jumps up.

That means that I am being reactive.

If I was proactive I would open the door walk faster, check while I say hop and he would not think twice about not jumping into the car.

[pgm]

Erny, I don't exactly follow your thinking. To my mind whether or not a correction is adequate depends not on whether the dog complies before the zing becomes a physical correction, but whether or not the dog complies (without any zing whatsoever) the next time the command is given.

Put simply, if I have to give a correction more than once (whether it is a zing or physical correction) then that tells me that my first correction was inadequate.

You seem to be relying on the 'zing' to get compliance, whereas I tend to think that compliance should come from the dog without any correction whatsoever.

So long as you are relying on the 'zing' that suggests to me that your corrections are not adequate.

[Steve K9Pro]

E:

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).

K9: sorry I havent read all your posts to get an idea of what your talking about here or your thoughts on balance.

E:

"If the dog doesn't respond, this makes your program reactive

K9: I mean, if you zing & the dog does not comply, what next? Anything you do will be a reaction, making teh training program, timing & consistency all determined by the dog, not the trainer.

E:

I disagree (in my experiences) that the dog loses "attitude" because my "reward base is lacking".

K9: I dont have any problems with you disagreeing, its just what I have found in most cases.

I certainly didnt intend on going on this long, I have simply replied to clarify what I have said.

I havent changed my view after considering what you have said (typed). But thats ok, I was probably never going to.

[Kavik]

Trying to get some understanding here - so K9 what is a proactive method?

[MonElite]

Kavik

command, correct, comply, reward

[Lablover]

Excuse me please. Why is not the length of the zing "correction"collar not mentioned at all and why is the slack or length of the of lead not detailed here?

Edited June 14, 2005 by Lablover

[haven]

command, correct, comply, reward

So are you saying that you give the dog the correction without giving them the opportunity to comply?

Or is that the sequence you use after the dog ignores the first command?

[Erny]

Excuse me please. Why is not the length of the zing "correction"collar not mentioned at all and why is the slack or length of the of lead not detailed here?

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.