I think that's quite a perceptive post, Lizzy

I think too that we expect perfection of our dogs, when we aren't anywhere close to perfect, ourselves.

Wys
x

Nope, you still 'pray and hope'.

You said yourself, your dogs have a high pain threshold and that it's entirely possible your dogs could choose to ignore the collar

From this post, it seems you use a shock collar on your dog because you believe it is needed to proof the commands and also because you believe it is a life saver?

So would you say then that you would use one anyway on a dog, even if you were not partaking in a sport? Or would you feel you did not need a shock collar if you were not partaking in sport with your dogs?

Wys
x

I agree, exactly. You still pray and hope.

Wys
x

Just a coincidence ???? yer right & I believe in fairies as well

I know you think that training techniques and methodology are not being explained, Firstlight, but I think the majority here use variations of lure and reward and/or clicker training. I'm sure you'd soon tire of descriptions of techniques that you are probably aware of.

Perhaps if you were more specific in your request for information, you'd get more responses in this respect

I wasn't talking about fault, Brierley, I was talking about misinterpretation of things people read and hear, and yes, sometimes even the things they see with their own eyes. The example you cited was a bit different, because in your case the woman apparently was missing a critical piece of information, i.e., DO NOT practice in the road. She evidently was a very "literal" learner, or just plain lacked common sense (lot of that going around).

Back to my example of puppy greeting behavior: Most of the people that train with me want their dogs to be good citizens and don't want them jumping on people. Most have tried doing something to curb the behavior based on things they have heard or read, and have only succeeded in either exacerbating the behavior, or causing their pups to become fearful and/or aggressive in greeting. The first problem is the owner's lack of knowledge, which causes them to misinterpret the jumping. I show them a different way of dealing with the problem, but only after I explain why pups jump. Once they understand the why of the behavior, they are better able to understand not only why their method of dealing with it failed/made it worse, but also how they could have prevented it in the first place, and why the method I use is more likely to succeed.

To my way of thinking, there is a mindset, i.e., thinking dog, that is essential to being a good trainer. I suspect that eons ago, when people lived with, used and interacted with animals on a daily basis, folks did a lot less anthropomorphizing than folks do today. Many people that I encounter these days seem to have to be taught how to honor and love creatures like dogs for what they are; they are animals, and they will continue to behave like animals, despite peoples' persistence in treating them like humans. Dogs can never be human, and it is my opinion, based on my experience, that it is totally unfair, destructive and demeaning to them to expect them to act like like us.

I'm pretty sure I described earlier on in the thread how I would train a sit-stay giving a good idea how any instruction is trained using positive training. However I felt I got patronised so I gave up on the thread because I felt I was not being taken seriously. I have trained many dogs, a few with major issues and although I am no expert I am knowledgeable enough to be able to put a positive training routine in place for the dogs I work with.

I believe you will find your answer in my reply to Lizzy, post #277, which is on the same page as and preceded this one of yours.

Apparently you are a victim of the same timing glitch Malpeki experienced in her post #258 on page 26. You might want to try the solution I suggested in post 265 on page 27 .

'tis a long thread - posts get missed. I'm pretty sure I've missed loads either by skim reading or reading very early or very late . It's so much easier and more productive to give a brief summary of a previous reply than refer back to the original