Prong Collars

[Staff'n'Toller]

I think what K9 means by reactive vs. proactive is that in reactive, the dog is only ever responding to the correction, and is ignoring the zing as it's not not powerful enough- it's like you're double correcting, only the 'zing' is nothing but hot air, and perhaps just a preceder telling the dog the real correction is coming next....

A proactive dog is one that learns very quickly to show the behaviour in order to avoid the correction, the dog is thinking.

Giving corrections constantly means that it almost becomes part of the sit position, or part of the drop position, the dog relys on it, and it becomes a routine for the dog.

Feel free to correct me K9...that's just my take on the discussion.

Mel.

[Erny]

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.

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 ...

Erny  .... the sound of the "zing" is sufficient and serves, for her, as a correction. 

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" ?

[haven]

Erny, it seems like some are still stuck on the fact that the noise IS a correction for your dog.

[Erny]

Erny, it seems like some are still stuck on the fact that the noise IS a correction for your dog.

I've been thinking that too, Haven.

[Erny]

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.

If a dog received a check/correction that he could never avoid, "learned helplessness" becomes a risk.

Do you always train "pro-active" ?

[Erny]

A proactive dog is one that learns very quickly to show the behaviour in order to avoid the correction...

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.

[Steve K9Pro]

E:

If a dog received a check/correction that he could never avoid, "learned helplessness" becomes a risk.

K9: Learned helplessness is a symptom of stress, its a risk in any training program as each time the dog is required to offer a new behaviour, stress will be induced.

The dog learns to avoid the correction with fast immediate compliance.

E:

Do you always train "pro-active" ?

K9: yes, pro active training makes me the trainer, not the dog training me.

E:

If Myszka's explanation is correct (see post), then I don't see how the dog receives the opportunity to avoid the correction

K9: when I see the dog complying, I raise the level of distraction until I find the dog not complying, keep training until I have overcome that distraction & reach the desired level.

Then I, as the pro active trainer, decide when the dog stops being corrected.

The dog is weaned off the corrections & feels that its compliance has been fast enough to avoid the corrections...

Stress is controlled through motivation for success.

[pgm]

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.

Erny, the impression occurs when you say things such as:

The other thing I like about Check Chains is that, once a dog has paired the two together, the simple sound of the "zip" as the ring 'sings' along the chain can in itself become, to the dog, the correction.

and:

Because, through pairing, it is possible for a dog to be conditioned to perceive the sound of the chain "zinging" as if it had received the correction itself.

and:

What I'm trying to say, K9, is that through her initial training, an automatic, although unintentional pairing of the "zing" and the "correction" occurred.

How does this pairing occur except for repeated repetitions? For the dog to associate the 'zing' with the correction requires repetition. If my dog on the other hand, only recieves one correction no such association can develop.

Only though repetition can a dog 'pair' one thing with another...

[haven]

Only though repetition can a dog 'pair' one thing with another...

That's not so, it has to do with the appetetive or aversive nature of the event and how well they are paired in time.

[Erny]

K9: when I see the dog complying, I raise the level of distraction until I find the dog not complying, keep training until I have overcome that distraction & reach the desired level.

Then I, as the pro active trainer, decide when the dog stops being corrected.

The dog is weaned off the corrections & feels that its compliance has been fast enough to avoid the corrections... 

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.

K9: Learned helplessness is a symptom of stress, its a risk in any training program as each time the dog is required to offer a new behaviour, stress will be induced.

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?

Stress is controlled through motivation for success.

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?

[Erny]

Only though repetition can a dog 'pair' one thing with another..

I've forgotten the actual terminology, but there is such a thing as "once off" learning.

But, in any case, I don't think any dog has learnt ALL behaviours (eg. Sit AND Drop AND Stand etc.) by only ever having been corrected once (and I don't mean once in each, but once over the whole range of behaviours).

Even in K9's "pro-active" training (which is still under discussion), there is more than one correction applied, but each is to achieve improvement.

I'm no different.

[pgm]

I've forgotten the actual terminology, but there is such a thing as "once off" learning.

Maybe. But still, like K9 I really don't understand the 'zing'. For all I know my own dog may well have paired the zing of the collar with a correction - doesn't matter. By the time he hears the zing it is too late, he's already been corrected.

It is the notion of 'pairing' that confuses me - I don't want my dog to 'pair' or associate the zing with anything. The only pairing I want is - attention/absence of correction - lack of attention/correction.

If you are saying that the zing IS the correction (which is what I suspect you are trying to say) then what need for 'pairing'?

Pairing only seems to confuse the issue - or perhaps that is just me.....

[Erny]

Pairing only seems to confuse the issue - or perhaps that is just me.....

I don't know, pgm .... there appears to be one or two others that aren't getting it either!

You'll see by my earlier posts that the "pairing" isn't something that I've deliberately set out to achieve. It occurred with my dog (as it has for a few others of the many I've worked with) simply because the "zing" happened immediately preceeding the "physical correction".

My dog (and, as I mentioned, for the few others) has demonstrated (body language, command compliance/improvement) that the "zing" is, for her (or them, as the case may be), an "effective" correction and I don't need to follow through with the "physical correction".

Have I perhaps explained more clearly in this post?

Edited June 14, 2005 by Erny

[pgm]

Erny, if the zing works and what you mean by 'works' is the same as what I mean by 'works' then that is fine, no problem. (given your previous explanation I suspect that 'works' is the same for you as it is for me).

But still! I know my correction has worked insofar as I do not need to give another. Maybe you have given a correction and noticed that your dog has lossed some of it's drive, hence you give a lesser correction next time? (meaning a zing, without the zang?) Fair enough...I don't really have a problem.

[Erny]

pgm: thanks for the reply and you make me because I have this "what works for you works for me" saying running through my head now ....

Yes - I think we're on the same page, assuming your corrections are "effective"!

I realised the "zing" operated as an effective correction for my girl & ors. when the behaviour I was correcting for altered prior to the "physical correction" happening. I wasn't sure of its "lasting effect" either, at first, but time is a good tester and it's worked for me.

As I've mentioned in numerous other posts, though, I agree that it doesn't work for all (most) dogs and thus I haven't lost the art of utilising a "physical correction" (or "zang", as you've so appropriately labelled it! )

ETA: Since her self-assumed "pairing" of "zing" with "zang" ( ), I noticed that "zang", in an unloaded environment, inhibited her drive - another good reason I ceased to "zang" at those times!

Edited June 14, 2005 by Erny

[Ciara]

Just a question off the side, after reading all of these posts;

Do you altogether cease using corrections once the dog is proofed, or do you intermittently correct?

[Erny]

Just a question off the side, after reading all of these posts;

Do you altogether cease using corrections once the dog is proofed, or do you intermittently correct?

Ciara - is this question directed to me?

If it is, the answer is I only correct if my dog is non-compliant in a known command - but this doesn't happen often and as I mentioned in an earlier post, I can't recall when I last found it necessary to correct her.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Erny

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: each dog I put through three stages, teach, train, proof.

When I have gotten to the proofing stage, corrections are finished. If the dogs performance starts to drop, I move back into training for a period of time in which the dog will recieve corrections.

I dont attempt to proof the dog before its ready, hence I wont then be reacting if I give the dog a command & it doesnt comply.

[Erny]

K9: each dog I put through three stages, teach, train, proof.

When I have gotten to the proofing stage, corrections are finished. If the dogs performance starts to drop, I move back into training for a period of time in which the dog will recieve corrections.

I dont attempt to proof the dog before its ready, hence I wont then be reacting if I give the dog a command & it doesnt comply.

Doesn't sound any different to the training regime I use either. Just your labels (ie pro-active/reactive) made me think there was a vast difference.

ETA - Just one further query on something Myszka raised by way of explanation of your definition of "pro-active" training, where it was suggested that the dog receive the correction at the same time as the command. Is that a consistent part of your training program, or do you only use that in the "training phase re-visited" stage, to overcome a problem. If this is the case, I'm thinking Myszka is referring to what I know as "double trouble".... I'm guessing you'd be familiar with that term, K9?

Edited June 15, 2005 by Erny

[MonElite]

If a dog received a check/correction that he could never avoid, "learned helplessness" becomes a risk.

Do you always train "pro-active" ?

My methodology is K9s metodology.....

I have used the sequence of command, wait for comply, correct reward in the past.

My dog has learned several commands and could perform them without corrections. However recall was not ideal.

I have trained recall the way K9 prescribes and the results were much faster than from the methods I have used in the past.

The dog does get the opportunity to comply, and it can avoid a correction by performing an excercise extra fast.

Call me K9s follower, I wont mind.