Actually Tass, you were quite wrong when you referred to his methods previously, perhaps you don't remember... IIRC I believe you posted inferring he only used a method intended to make a dog sick! This was wrong and unfair to the the method.[/b]

[I]
I have asked you to explain his method twice already. as you have not done so yet, I am now asking a third time.

You have also not yet answered this question:




Maybe the well-known technique of using emetics for a conditioned taste aversion is an alternative technique to the one you refer to but so far you have declined to explain this method, other than telling me I am wrong, without telling me precisely how despite being previously asked. although you criticise me for, according to you, posting before asking .

Here is a explanation of the technique I am referring to, taken from the Journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.co...181-1/abstract

Journal Volume 54 Issue 2 Pages 251-256 (October 1997)
Failure of LiCl-conditioned taste aversion to prevent dogs from attacking sheep
Inger Hansen a, Morten Bakkenb, Bjarne Olai Braastadb
Accepted 4 October 1996.
Abstract
Two Alaskan Husky dogs were used in a pilot study to examine the feasibility of LiCl-conditioned taste aversion as a method to prevent dogs from attacking livestock. The salt LiCl induces vomiting and diarrhoea, but is also an antidepressive drug. The dogs were fed LiCl-treated sheep baits at doses of 1–4 g LiCl per 250–900 g bait. A 4 g amount of LiCl in 500 g bait established a strong aversion against sheep meat in both dogs. Nevertheless, both dogs continued to attack sheep with an intensity even greater to that observed prior to LiCl treatment. Temporary side effects of the LiCl treatment included pronounced aggressiveness between the two dogs at feeding time, muscle stiffness and poor motor coordination. These results indicate that the method of LiCl-conditioned taste aversion to prevent dogs attacking sheep failed.

As for promoting this method, yes I do promote it in the sense that I believe it's a very useful alternative to the shock collar. I can call my Belgian off running deer and other animals using a method which is very similar to this, therefore I know it can work very well indeed.

I do not remotely deny or disagree that target transfer, as part of a BMT programme, including looking at the health of the dog, its relationship with the owner, basic control in other areas, introducing a new recall signal e.g a whistle (to get away from accustomed ignoring of an established but ineffective command/signal) including long line and distraction training, environmental control, gradual desensitisation, counter conditioning, psychopharmacological intervention, substitute response training, various aversive or signal of non reward, food portion reallocation, coupling with a reliably trained dog, increasing alternative structured exercise as an energy outlet, investigation and addressing of chase motivation and past history will resolve most chase/recall chases, and remote collars can help in others (some people will use spray remotes, others will use electric or ultra sonic remotes) that don't respond to any of these steps, backed up by emetic aversion by some trainers/behaviourists (which may or may not include DR,as I am still waiting for you to explain the details of his method) will resolve almost all cases.

BUT there will still be a very few cases where the environment cannot be sufficiently controlled, and where the training level comparative to the chase motivation cannot be achieved at a consistently high enough level to proof it for all situations.

This applies whatever method is used, by whichever trainer/behaviourist, which is why I queried your figures of 96% solved without aversives and 4%, including a particularly difficult sheep-eating husky addressed with spray collars with conditoined aversion. 96=4=100%

I don't actually know of any other methods except getting a dog hooked on a ball, but it's not exactly the same as this method.

I have suggested various considerations and graduated and alternative steps in a recall programme above.

I'm here to chat and maybe help dogs and owners, not debate with people who are just after an argument, which you appear to be. You are a relatively new member who seems to prefer to complain rather than be constructive. IF you debated in a different manner, then that would be different.

I'm sorry you appear to consider putting an alternative perspective to yourself as being argumentative. My understanding of debate is that there have to be two sides to it and debating something relates to covering as many relevant factors on both sides as possible, to get the fullest possible picture to form an informed overall opinion.

If the positives of a method are already being promoted and discussed, that ground does not require to be covered again, whereas, for balanced debate, any shortcomings or risks should also be made apparent.

Surely it is of limited help to discuss a technique at length but to repeatedlly decline to provide the practical details of how someone could themselves utilise this method?

Do you yourself have any good methods on preventing dogs chasing? I don't appear to have read anything helpful from you about this subject, unless I've missed it.

See above, see also posts #18 and post#19 when I commended Smokey bear on her post.

In keeping with what I have said here about debating (that there is no need to reiterate ground already covered), I did not repeat what Smokey bear posted, as it had already been said, but I did support and agree with it


By the way, the source you used for reference re. taste aversion, you forgot to mention that the author, who I know well actually really likes the method in spite of what you quoted, which sounded negative. In fact, she hosted the seminar.

The comparisons given by that person all related to feeling ill and/or nauseous ill in association with something, to avoid confusion and to make it easier for other to follow this thread I shall re-paste it here: ..

very powerful one trial learnign that stays with animals for life usually (anyone who has had alcohol poisoning will tell you that they can't stand the smell or taste of whichever drink it was that made them ill; it's also the same reason that chemo patients go off what ever food/drink they had before their chemo). fascinating topic is taste aversion...some really interesting studies on it (i.e. stopping coyotes and wolves from predating on sheep, the reason why rats are so difficult to poison etc.)."

Alcohol poisoning makes you sick, chemo makes you feel sick, rats are difficult to poison because they will sample a small amount of a novel food and avoid it, making it difficult to poison them, if it makes them sick, emetics are used to stop cotes and wolves predating on livestock . None of those results are due to merely disliking a taste.

If I have made an erroneous connection or drawn an inaccurate conclusion maybe you could now please explain what this method does involve and how that relates to these comments?

Not everyone will agree with or like this method and that's up to them, but what I do object to is someone dissing a method and an individual, and not even getting their facts right (which you've done twice now).


Wys

Or, like the rest of us mortals, you keep your dog on the lead around sheep?


(ps - Wys - your mailbox is full!)

As for "dissing" any individual, as I already posted, you brought in a personality, rather than discussing a technique without relating it to an individual, and I have already said I am aware of other behaviourists who utilise it so I am not intending to criticise any individual although I am interested in discussing this technique, and others, and no technique should be immune to impartial examination as they ALL have pros and cons.

Tass, I'm sorry but I'm really not up for long confusing discussions over who said what. I haven't, therefore, read your post except for the bit that has just come up as a quote in this post here.

At the end of the day you are entitled to your opinion, no-one says you are not, I just find that the way you discuss things tends to come across as an attack rather than as genuine interest or enquiry.

Wys
x

I don't know if I've missed something along the way, but that comes across as rather strange.

I previously started a thread where (to the best of my recollection,) you brought up DR and mentioned his technique. When questioned on it, you appeared to become rather evasive and suggested that Tass attend one of his seminars rather than explain what DR does.

I'm still not sure what it is that DR does and find it rather bizarre that you still won't clarify it.

is this on topic? Why don`t you start your own thread if you have a point to make?

......
I'm still not sure what it is that DR does and find it rather bizarre that you still won't clarify it.

I did - Wysiwig brought up DR and was questioned on his technique. She didn't answer, and it has come up again here.

I did - Wysiwig brought up DR and was questioned on his technique. She didn't answer, and it has come up again here.