Training Discussion - Head Halters

[Erny]

K9 - Without re-quoting your last post, I agree. And I think this is what most have implied/said in their individual posts.

[Erny]

Rotty person too!

Hey HR! You suggesting you might expect less from a "Ridgy" (eg) person?

Edited November 8, 2005 by Erny

[Herr Rottweiler]

I know trainers who curse me for helping people free, when they need the business.

Really? I help people out all the time and no money changes hands. Last week I pulled the car over to help a couple with their dog. The only thing I got out of that was satifaction for being a nice bloke anf 30 minutes late to where I was going.

My greatest annoyance, is spending large amounts of time typing out a successful technique that people will try and then come back and say, "it didn't work" where i could spend 15 minutes demonstarting it physically with a 99% strike rate.

If that's selfish, then I'll go he! If it looks like i'm trying to hide something or trying to get manipulate DOL's into joining ADT then that's the stupidity of the reader.

There are so many books out there that will share the same advice that I will give which people will read and still not be able to get it. Funnily enough, once the same person has a short hands on session, the light comes on.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Rotty person too!

Hey HR! You suggesting you might expect from a "Ridgy" (eg) person?

Hmmm I might be, but you know where I live! ;)

[Steve K9Pro]

HR:

Really?

K9: either they are pissed at me because I help free or pissed at me because I get results fast. Yeah seems I keep them busy lol..

HR:

There are so many books out there that will share the same advice that I will give which people will read and still not be able to get it. Funnily enough, once the same person has a short hands on session, the light comes on.

K9: this is also why Im not a ig fan of recommending books, the author always makes some assumptions as to the readers ability, & if they dont, the damn book is an idiots guide... lol..

[sidoney]

Hard to keep up with everything here but I have a couple of things to add.

I agree, however what we are witnessing here is a clash of ideas and beliefs between dog trainers and general dog owners.

It would be more accurate here to state "some dog trainers". It has already been established in this thread that some dog trainers do use them at times. Also some general dog owners have also stated their opposition to them. Hm. In balance I don't think that the dichotomy is there.

I dont think that they are no good,

This was not aimed at you, as I have found that you tend to make balanced statements and/or back up what you say.

My overall concern is, buy one, fit is as per instructions, go for a walk, you may come home with a dog with an injured neck, no other tool can do that.

I rarely find I need to disagree with you but have to on this point. Firstly, check chains can injure necks. That is established. Secondly, a different tool used improperly or a handler that can't control a dog can result in a dog squished by a car or attacking or attacked by another dog (or whatever). Thirdly, I don't think that used properly there is a large risk. Again, these are at risk of being used improperly. I have never suggested that they are a mild tool. Some of the statements made about them, esp. in advertising blurbs, suggesting that they are mild are inaccurate. I would suggest that they have the potential to be severe and this can be useful with some dogs ... like wearing spurs on a horse can be useful. "R - E - S - P - E - C - T" *sings*

And I think this is what most have implied/said in their individual posts.

Most, yes, but not all. I reread the thread before I posted suggesting any implications in order to ensure that the concrete evidence was there.

I think if the only way a trainer can get results, this is a pro trainer mind you, they are in competant

I would be surprised if a pro trainer could not get the results they wanted from a number of methods. However any trainer is going to develop a set of tools that they will have a preference for. That is human nature. And no trainer, not even one that spends a lifetime learning/teaching/training, will be equally competent in every area.

[Herr Rottweiler]

I rarely find I need to disagree with you but have to on this point. Firstly, check chains can injure necks. That is established. Secondly, a different tool used improperly or a handler that can't control a dog can result in a dog squished by a car or attacking or attacked by another dog (or whatever). Thirdly, I don't think that used properly there is a large risk. Again, these are at risk of being used improperly. I have never suggested that they are a mild tool. Some of the statements made about them, esp. in advertising blurbs, suggesting that they are mild are inaccurate. I would suggest that they have the potential to be severe and this can be useful with some dogs ... like wearing spurs on a horse can be useful. "R - E - S - P - E - C - T" *sings*

I would add that any device has the potential to cause harm to a dog. The Halti or gentle leader is fitted to the dogs face which can be used to pivot the dogs head violently in the wrong direction.

If people wish to use these I don't object to them doing so I just like them to be aware of the options and how each of those items work

[sidoney]

If people wish to use these I don't object to them doing so I just like them to be aware of the options and how each of those items work

I completely agree with this statement!!! Using a potentially powerful tool (whatever it is) with no understanding is definitely problematic.

[Steve K9Pro]

S:

I rarely find I need to disagree with you but have to on this point. Firstly, check chains can injure necks. That is established.

K9: if you attach your dog to a check chain & it lunges it wont injur itself, it may do on a halter, of course of correction can injur a dog but from all studies I have read, thats only from extensive use.

S:

Secondly, a different tool used improperly or a handler that can't control a dog can result in a dog squished by a car or attacking or attacked by another dog (or whatever).

K9: then I would call it a restraint rather than a training tool..

S:

Thirdly, I don't think that used properly there is a large risk.

K9: like I said before, I deem the risk moderate, not minor, not large, but moderate, & I feel that unlike other tools where there needs to be miss use to cause injury, simply holding the leash on a lunging dog can cause that injry.

S:

I would be surprised if a pro trainer could not get the results they wanted from a number of methods. However any trainer is going to develop a set of tools that they will have a preference for. That is human nature. And no trainer, not even one that spends a lifetime learning/teaching/training, will be equally competent in every area.

K9: the tools I recomend are not always the ones I use myself, they are the ones that give the client success easily..

[Erny]

However any trainer is going to develop a set of tools that they will have a preference for. That is human nature.

I disagree that it's just a matter of "human nature" - IMO a good trainer would hold those preferences as a result of having worked with the various tools available, evaluated the success in terms of efficiency of training, reliability of the training, effect/affect on the dog (physically and emotionally). (Admittedly, I've never trained on harness - haven't had the need - I only know what I've read, on that score. But if the need did arise ..... ?)

I don't believe that a good trainer has a preference to any tool, or any training method for that matter, unless the above has (generally) been proven in reference to the above.

And a good trainer will have as many tools and methods in their "tool box" because dogs are individuals.

Having said that, I personally have yet had the need to utilise a head collar on any of the dogs I've been asked to train, to achieve better results. As has been pointed out in other posts (mine inclusive, if I recall), some handlers might need the headcollar to achieve the control necessary to permit further training. Unfortunately, for many (not all, mind), once they have the control they seek, the training aspect rarely progresses and the dog's behaviour is merely suppressed, but not remedied.

[sidoney]

K9: if you attach your dog to a check chain & it lunges it wont injur itself, it may do on a halter, of course of correction can injur a dog but from all studies I have read, thats only from extensive use.

I don't disagree here, but I also don't recall that the original statement specified conditions under which injury might occur. I would also suggest that it would not have to be extensive use, but that the studies were done in such a way that the measurements were after prolonged use. That would be a fault of the research method. I would suggest that improper use of a chain can injure within a short time period.

K9: then I would call it a restraint rather than a training tool.

This is probably a semantic difference.

K9: like I said before, I deem the risk moderate, not minor, not large, but moderate, & I feel that unlike other tools where there needs to be miss use to cause injury, simply holding the leash on a lunging dog can cause that injry.

I would suggest that a situation that allows the dog to lunge or makes it more than a small likelihood would be an improper use of the tool. I also suggest that it is possible to set up this tool in such a way that the head turn is limited (eg. acting on nose to a certain extent and then taken up by collar). However I understand that this is not how they are promoted. I think that they are incorrectly promoted in many instances.

I disagree that it's just a matter of "human nature"

Sorry, but it is. That is a layperson's way of expressing it, but people do develop preferences, esp. for what is familiar, and then may make attributions in order to justify their preferences, or regard them as if they are not personal preferences but attributes of the thing they have a greater or lesser preference for. There is more to it than that but those are some bare bones of the matter.

Unfortunately, for many (not all, mind), once they have the control they seek, the training aspect rarely progresses and the dog's behaviour is merely suppressed, but not remedied.

I agree with this statement. And this is not a problem confined to one tool only.

[Steve K9Pro]

S:

I don't disagree here, but I also don't recall that the original statement specified conditions under which injury might occur.

K9: I see the importance lies in the perception of the user, most people will know that if they jerk like mad on any collar, they may cuase an injury, but loosing concentration on your dog for a moment & it lunging is easier to do than jerking.

Its going to happen way more often.

In fact if you gave a check to a person who had never seen a dog before, I would be surprised if the checked the dog, so no injury, the same person could fit the halter & injury would occur as they did nothing.

S:

K9: then I would call it a restraint rather than a training tool.

This is probably a semantic difference.

K9: I think differently, I think the idea is to get the dog to want to do things your way, not do them from a trigger that they have a halter on.

S:

I would suggest that a situation that allows the dog to lunge or makes it more than a small likelihood would be an improper use of the tool.

K9: if simply holding the end of the leash is miss use, then you need another collar & leash fitted with the halter.

S:

I also suggest that it is possible to set up this tool in such a way that the head turn is limited (eg. acting on nose to a certain extent and then taken up by collar).

K9: you can double rig them which takes the leverage out of the halter, I can tell you from experience that if you can train this way, you didnt need the halter & its risks...

S:

Sorry, but it is. That is a layperson's way of expressing it, but people do develop preferences, esp. for what is familiar, and then may make attributions in order to justify their preferences, or regard them as if they are not personal preferences but attributes of the thing they have a greater or lesser preference for.

K9: I feel differently, like I said, I recommend other tools than I use myself, because it either benefits the owner or dog.

I rellay believe there are only three collars of any real use, the e collar, the prong & the martingale, in that order, however I recommend them to my clients in the reverse order of that.

[Erny]

Unfortunately, for many (not all, mind), once they have the control they seek, the training aspect rarely progresses and the dog's behaviour is merely suppressed, but not remedied.

I agree with this statement. And this is not a problem confined to one tool only.

Too true, however, in my experience, less likely and less frequently extended to tools such as check chains (eg) as merely stopping and holding the leash taught does not necessarily alter the unwanted 'pulling' behaviour and can still result in the handler being pulled along - so the handler actually has to work (ie train).

I hear where you're coming from, but I think we need to agree to disagree, to an extent, on the 'human nature' component of our discussion - afterall, isn't it to be expected that we'd become more familiar with a method that (overall) generally works better than others, simply because we then use it the most?

Edited November 8, 2005 by Erny

[sidoney]

K9: I think differently, I think the idea is to get the dog to want to do things your way, not do them from a trigger that they have a halter on.

I still lean towards this being a semantic difference. The dog does things because of consequences or a belief in consequences. The halter is a fairly obvious signal that there is a particular kind of possible consequence. Other but not all tools are also obvious. As has been demonstrated, there is the possibility of becoming dependent on the obvious tools, as the dog knows the difference between presence and absence. Def. a disadvantage of this tool.

(BTW I am not necessarily arguing that it's a great tool or the best tool, just wanted to provide another POV.)

K9: if simply holding the end of the leash is miss use, then you need another collar & leash fitted with the halter.

Or don't hold it by the end of the leash.

I rellay believe there are only three collars of any real use, the e collar, the prong & the martingale, in that order, however I recommend them to my clients in the reverse order of that.

Unfortunately, because of misconceptions, some of these are illegal in some places. What then?

less likely and less frequently extended to tools such as check chains (eg) as merely stopping and holding the leash taught does not necessarily alter the unwanted 'pulling' behaviour and can still result in the handler being pulled along - so the handler actually has to work (ie train).

Two comments here. One is that lots of people DON'T train and DO simply get pulled along. They may as well put a flat collar on the dog. Of course I think we all know that. Second, some dogs will back off the halter. Yay for their handlers, makes it easier for them. (But probably these will be the ones that will never get off the thing.) Some don't, and do need the handler to have some input. Is there a benefit in fitting a halter over, say, a prong? Probably not ... but see above comment on availability of some of the other tools.

Something that I disagree with is the marketing of halters stating they are "mild" and suggesting that little training is needed to use one. IMO they can be severe.

I think we need to agree to disagree, to an extent, on the 'human nature' component

Sure. That's not really the thread topic anyway. The point was to state that even people who think they are acting in a way that is unpreferenced, are not necessarily accurate in their self-perception.

isn't it to be expected that we'd become more familiar with a method that (overall) generally works better than others, simply because we then use it the most?

Somewhat of a chicken and egg argument. It is possible that it works the best because you use it the most and are better at that method than others. The causality is not clear.

Edited November 8, 2005 by sidoney

[Steve K9Pro]

S:

The dog does things because of consequences or a belief in consequences.

K9: just for accuracy, dogs actually do things out of motivation, they stop doing things to avoid negative consequences...

S:

The halter is a fairly obvious signal that there is a particular kind of possible consequence.

K9: this is correct however, the way the aversive is applied seems to give the dog a lot of room to move in terms of compliance, in other words, pull but with less tension, when the tension (halter) is removed, the dog pulls again.

This is also consistent with my theory that they (halters) deminish drive.

S:

(BTW I am not necessarily arguing that it's a great tool or the best tool, just wanted to provide another POV.)

K9: I understand & am greatful its you Sid, other wise it seems to get heated, lol..

S:

Or don't hold it by the end of the leash.

K9: dog gone...

S:

Unfortunately, because of misconceptions, some of these are illegal in some places. What then?

K9: I have the dogs best interest in mind, & thankfully, not where I live, but if they were, I guess I would still use them.

[Erny]

K9: I have the dogs best interest in mind, & thankfully, not where I live, but if they were, I guess I would still use them.

In circumstances where you are working with dogs other than your own, would you also openly and freely advocate and sell, and/or guide your clients to buy too?

Edited November 8, 2005 by Erny

[sidoney]

K9: just for accuracy, dogs actually do things out of motivation, they stop doing things to avoid negative consequences...

Ah semantics again ... I would suggest that dogs can be "motivated" by positive consequences.

seems to give the dog a lot of room to move in terms of compliance, in other words, pull but with less tension

I would call allowing any ongoing tension an improper use. Allowing the dog to pull but with less tension would set the handler up for eternal reliance on the device.

This is also consistent with my theory that they (halters) deminish drive.

I would suggest that this is not necessarily so, but it depends on the use. There are US agility trainers who use them, and their dogs have tremendous drive. Susan Garrett and others at her training school would be a specific example.

[Steve K9Pro]

E':

In circumstances where you are working with dogs other than your own, would you also openly and freely advocate and sell, and/or guide your clients to buy too?

K9: yes, I provide accurate info, people make their own law choices.

S:

I would call allowing any ongoing tension an improper use. Allowing the dog to pull but with less tension would set the handler up for eternal reliance on the device.

K9: ok I would say that proper use would be the method determined by the manufacturer, which is as I say, constant tension.

S:

I would suggest that this is not necessarily so, but it depends on the use.

K9: the majority of dogs either go into avoidance or panick when just the device is fitted. Then when they cant get it off, they go close to shut down, this all happens before any use at all.

S:

There are US agility trainers who use them, and their dogs have tremendous drive. Susan Garrett and others at her training school would be a specific example.

K9: first, there is drive & there is DRIVE!, correct choice of dog temp & desensitization can over come the loss of drive, we are not talking about what I or Suzanne could do with one though, we are talking about Joe Citizen...

[Erny]

E':

In circumstances where you are working with dogs other than your own, would you also openly and freely advocate and sell, and/or guide your clients to buy too?

K9: yes, I provide accurate info, people make their own law choices.

K9 - would you not be concerned that some people would report your use of the banned tools (if you were in Victoria, for instance), leaving you open for prosecution?

Perhaps your braver or richer than I am ...... or both!

[Steve K9Pro]

E:

K9 - would you not be concerned that some people would report your use of the banned tools (if you were in Victoria, for instance), leaving you open for prosecution?

K9: its use of the tool that is banned (well prongs anyway) not recommendation of.

E:

Perhaps your braver or richer than I am ...... or both!

K9: my Lawyer is a shark! lol....