I've just read through the original post on this thread. Am I right in thinking that the owner actually only saw one behaviourist who advocated tethering and a rank reduction programme.

The only other training which took place, from what I can see from that original post, was participation in a basic training class (not the place for a reactive dog).

Poor dog has had water sprayed at it, loud noises, rattle bottles and then went to a training class which probably terrified the poor little thing. No wonder none of this worked.

For an owner who asserts she was looking for humane methods, she certainly went along with a lot of aversives without seeming to question them until and unless the dog was either physically ill or they quite clearly weren't working.

Brierley
So the behaviourists were Kennel Club accredited????

Clob (Denis)
One of them is I have no idea about the other they only saw the other twice after the KC one failed, he came through the vet, who, I might add, was delighted with the results after my training.

Brierley
There are very few Kennel Club accredited trainers or behaviourists. Perhaps your client would like to check her with the Kennel Club to make sure that they are indeed accredited and that this isn't just another supposition

Clob (Denis)
Yes, well with the standards that seem to be coming out I think one is to many, pet owners pay for results and get non with other than quiet dogs, its time they wisened up befor any more dogs are lost because pet owners can't afford to keep paying out for these people.

There are only two kinds of training, one that does and one that does not - period.

Lord Lucas:
I have never used an electric shock collar,
|
I was sent to the KC approved and best trainer in west London. We went through an extensive period, a couple of months, of reward-based training. We appeared at Crufts, we did not get the reward and the dog has not behaved any better since
|
he went through the tup method of aversion to sheep—which has been successful.
|
The idea that behaviour training will deal with the type of misbehaviour that my former noble friend, but my current friend, Lord Pearson of Rannoch calls a dog with a "strong character", or that training is available at a reasonable cost to most citizens, is unrealistic. A properly used electric training collar achieves something that cannot be done reasonably in other ways
|
to pretend that you can train a strong-willed dog without that sort of application of force is just lulu.

Yeah get a dog you can't handle, bang him into irons and hey presto - a trained dog.

If you can't handle a strong-willed breed and your answer is corporal punishment/force then don't get one.

Brierley
I've just read through the original post on this thread. Am I right in thinking that the owner actually only saw one behaviourist who advocated tethering and a rank reduction programme.

The only other training which took place, from what I can see from that original post, was participation in a basic training class (not the place for a reactive dog).


Clob (Denis)
The same behaviourist/trainer did both, the so called obedience course cost another £100, I think it was 6 or 8 weeks, the dog ignored them.

Mmmm,

I've looked a bit further at the other posts that have been put up by the original poster and I can't find anywhere that says this behaviourist/trainer is Kennel Club accredited.

She did say that she wrongly supposed that they were APDT and you said that you put that idea in her head. She apologised for that mistake.

So, let me get this straight, the lady saw one trainer only???

From the original post:

When we confronted this trainer about how ineffectual and disturbing this method was (it seemed very clear to us that Wesley felt cornered and scared being tied down and ignored as strange people came to the house), she looked perplexed; the only advice she could come up with is to put a board up in front of him so that he couldn’t see the guests, which of course was a way to avoid the problem rather than solve it. Afterwards, we tried to contact her for follow-ups and to report that the methods weren’t working, but she avoided our calls and never offered us a refund

later in that same original post

We went to a basic training obedience course and ‘stuck with’ training the dog consistently for over nine months—the methods we tried and repeated daily for months were as follows: spray of water in the face (both without him seeing it came from us and then with full knowledge it was coming from us); a shake bottle with coins; baking tins rigged to loudly crash down near the dog; pulling on a flat collar/leash; food and toy distractions; time-outs; and confinement to a crate. We did get results when it came to normal everyday behaviour, but we saw NO progress when it came to Wesley’s problem behaviour—if a greater reward was present (such as barking at/growling at/biting a guest or chasing a jogger), he chose to engage in that behaviour rather than obey my command for a food treat, or be bothered about water or a loud noise

Agreed BUT this branches out into whether you get positive results because the dog WANTS to and is fundamentally happy OR because he is hurt/frightened into it and is FEARFUL and therefore SUSPICIOUS AND RESENTFUL.

If the obedience class came after the original consult, then surely the owner was in contact with the trainer every week when she went to class???????????

What are the "wrong reasons?"

Wesley for one, Ms. Halberstrom's dog, wouldn't agree with you. Neither would Roma, owned by Jen Mackler, or Simon, a stray, all dogs whose lives were saved by the Ecollar.

OK, so it's rare, even very rare. It still happens. And this is an admission of that.

Many more have been trained with balanced methods. What is your definition of "positive training methods?" Let's remember that the first trainers that Ms. Halberstrom consulted billed themselves as "positive trainers." Yet they used methods that others here say are NOT those of "positive trainers." It's apparent that there is no single definition of it. And so I ask for yours.

Because there are people who have never seen the tool used who call it "abusive" and "barbaric." That may well influence someone who might otherwise consider using the tool. The reasoning of those folks needs to be explored.

Looks like we're back to letting the dogs chase cars and stock because it pleases them. Never mind that sometimes it's fatal. I think we have an obligation to train the dogs we take into our homes.

It's our superior intellect and tool using ability that allowed us to design and build the Ecollar.

This sounds a bit like a statement from the AR (Animal Rights) folks.