Rune ~ I didn't introduce myself no, i very rarely do, i prefer to people to get to know me over posts i make and make there own mind up on me. Not on what i post in an introductory thread.

On the Adam subject i read alot of his posts and watched some of the video's he posted. I explained how i feel about his methods above so i'll not repeat myself.

I'm going to correct myself here as the law has changed. They are actually a banned breed, but will not be siezed unless dog is seen as a nuisance and is wearing a muzzle and on leash in public at all times.

Also i'm not 100% sure if it's a pitbull mix or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. They look very similar.

Thanks for the discussion Rune.

Luthien ~ I explained myself above that the way i use them they are not painful to the dog, it's mearly annoying. It's the equivilant of someone poking you in the arm. It's not painful if they do it lightly it's just mearly annoying.

I'm sorry for the confusion i mis typed what i meant, my apologies.
I actually meant after the correction when they obey the cue they then recieve the praise.

Also as previously stated they do get a verbal warning which is a calmy spoken no. So they actually have a chance to avoid the correction on every command. Not like other people where if the dog doesn't comply straight away they get a sharp hard yank on the leash, which i agree is painful and cruel.

Thanks for the discussion Luthien.

On an ending note for this post i'm not here to troll and promote abuse of any Animal or Human. I will never condone or be impressed by dogs being trained using cruel methods.

I do agree though with certain dogs, annoying the dog as a correction is humane and acceptable.

Thank you for explaining your methods - I have to say I dont agree but I appreciate learning why others do what they do

imo if my dogs dont to what I want first time then I havent proofed their training properly so I go back and work on it some more

I can understand from a human pont of view what you are saying but I am struggling to see what the dogs are going to be thinking they correction word means

Kinda like you say 'sit' the dog dosent sit so you say your correction word (say) 'no' then punish then finally the dog sits

Next time you say 'heel' the dog dosent heel, so you say your correction word 'no' then punnish

So 'no' sometimes means sit, sometimes means heel

especially confusing if the dog wasnt obaying because he was too focused on something else and didnt actually hear the command - then he is just kinda guessing based on where he is and your position and movment what he should be doing

I know a lot of people do something similar but I really dont see how using different words to enforce and action is any better than repeating the command - both of them really mean the dog has ignored the command in the first place and had to wait for a further command


Personaly I prefer to make sure I have their attention and then lure the behaviour, call them to me again and ask for it again and then praise/reward - that way every time I ask for it it happens

Thanks for your reply i shall try to answer your questions as clearly as i possibly can.

First off in my experience the dogs don't associate the verbal warning with the cue. This is a taught during a seperate cue called climb. The cue itself is rather useless in the real word aspect. It's actual use is to teache the sequence of events that occurs after a command is given. What they learn here then carries over to the other cue's. Simply put, the dog hears the cue and chooses to disobey, he is then given his verbal warning. So it leads to the dog thinking "Oh, i know this, if i obey now i still avoid the correction." Obviously they don't think like that but you understand what i'm getting at.

The system of training i follow was designed to rehabilitate the worst case aggression dogs. It was designed to be the least stressful for the dog and operates on the principles of RESPECT, PATIENCE and LOYALTY. And i believe the system accomplishes all of that.

On the point of correcting while heeling. Verbal warning aren't used, there physical warning. Simply put if the dog fades left from the heel position we move to the right a little bit and the dog has time to move into the correction position. It's done that way so everytime the dog will always have a chance to avoid the correction.

Also the training style uses three phases, during the first and second stages you're simply teaching the behaviours completely around low distractions. Then during the second phase is when the dog gets corrected for disobeying again around low distraction.
Only in phase three training do the distractions start to increase.

This is done so the dog is always set up to succeed and doesn't get corrected because someone tried teaching them a sit cue in a full dog park. Which obviously isn't going to work well atall because of all the distractions.

On the last point the training at first is always done in low distraction enviroments so the dogs focus will always be on you and they'll be focused on there training session.

Not entirely correct

The DDA was amended in 1997 via section 4B

Their is no such change that says that dogs that are deemed to be of pit bull type (section 1) cannot be siezed for being an illegal dog.
If you own such a dog, it can be seized by the police simply for being so,
after which, *if* you can prove you are of good character, your dog is of good character, and you reside in an area of good character, you dog will be put on the list of exemption, whereby it will be reqiured to be microchipped, muzzled in public, and neutered.

In many areas, you dog will be seized and kennelled during this legal process.

The exception being london, whereby the met police had concern over kennelling costs, and decided dogs could go thru this legal process whilst remaining in their homes - but this is discretionary.

You cannot apply for this process yourself.

If you dog is put on the exemtion list he would be a legal exemption of an illegality, such as a person given legal medical exemtions to use illegal drugs for medical purposes.

As you admit you have no notion the difference between SBT and pit bull/pit bull type (their are quite a few differences, and pit bull type is determined by home office set bodily measurements and ratios), then it would not be wise to endanger your pet by advertising him as a pit bull, when you could just as well call him a staffy.
a low profile would be the sensible approach.

I fully agree with all of the above.

what is your verbal correction?

why dont you just ask the dog to sit a second time after the interval?

what does it mean to teach a dog a "sense of responsibility"?

and why not think to teach them a "sense of understanding" instead?

As do I.

Very strange username - a play on 'deranged' - which you really would have to be to advertise the fact that you own a banned breed.

If you are on the level, do your dog a favour and take off the breed listed as 'owned' as the longer you publicise the fact, the more danger you put your dog in.

Krusewalker ~ Thank you for the information, i've heeded your advice and changed the breed currently owned to Staff X.

Smokeybear ~ Thanks for your input.

Krusewalker (Second post) ~ A verbal correction is a simple calmly spoken 'no'.

I also don't just repeat the command for a few reasons. The main one being that if the dog is taught a verbal warning, the warning then carries over to all other cue's being given. If i just repeated the cue and then corrected the dog. For every new cue i tried to teach the dog would have to relearn how to avoid the correction.
By using the same verbal warning each time i believe it's less stressful on the dog as they already know how to avoid the correction.

The verbal warning is taught using a climb cue. All it consists of is the dog walking onto a very low platform. Whilst on there the dog can do as they please the only rule is that can't step of the platform. It makes it much easier on the dog and the trainer as they don't have to force a sit or a down all they have to do is simply walk the dog back onto the platform. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
During this time the dog learns how to avoid the correction.

On the topic of responsibility this was a poor word choice on my part, it'd be easer if i just said reliability. Thats essentially what i meant.

Brierley ~ I admit my advising was rather silly of me. I have taken Krusewalkers advice and changed that information.

On the statement about my username it's simply a handle i've used since i first started using the internet. It doesn't actually mean anything i just never thought about changing it. It's hard to forgot and it's very rare that someone else has that handle.

Thank you all for the interesting questions and information.

no, you are missing my point.

i meant if the dog doesn't sit, why not just give an interval and just ask again?

thats it

Krusewalker ~ Oh right, my apologies.
In answer to your question, in my opinion using that method does not make dogs reliable.
It simply teaches the dog that they can pick and choose when to listen.
You've basically told them to do something, they've ignored you. So you just ask them again and again until they do it.
In my opinion thats not really reliable.

Say you've come to a road and you asked the dog to sit.
What happens if he ignores you and walks into the road?
In this situation having a dog that reliably responses to there cue is must better than having a dog that chooses to obey when they feel like it.

Thank you for the discussion.