newf wrote:The trouble is, final proofing has to be done in public. Distraction may be hard for both the dog and the handler. A growl, a pointed finger or a quick jerk on a lead can bring about onlooker chastisement of the handler. An aversive experience for the handler in some cases can lead to accepting of lax behaviours that can become frustrating to both the dog and handler because of inconsistencies from yard to the real world.
I'm not sure why you think final proofing needs to be done in public, unless you're talking about walking/exercising the dog in a public place. Perhaps if you're embarrassed by the methods you use it's time to look for new ones.
Naj
I'm referring to basic ob. After teaching and training a dog to where behaviors have become habits it is still necessary to root the behaviors with mild corrections followed up with rewards for correct choices. Dog less folk and pet owners that only require love from their animals do not see the point in requiring an animal to respond, unless, it does it, on its own time. I do believe, most dog owners wanting a 'trained dog' for real life do use corrections to polish what is already there.
In referring to corrections, a mild leash jerk to an otherwise trained dog can be a distressful scene for the uninitiated.
I use cheese too and base all my training on positive reinforcement first and foremost. If a leash jerk on a trained dog is considered cruel and unusal punishment, than I'm guilty. I would say too, I have plenty of company that use some form of mild adversives in their training.
Here is a reputable man. What do you call this a 'love knot' ? And it is being used here, from what I can see, in the beginning stages of teaching heel.
newf wrote:
In referring to corrections, a mild leash jerk to an otherwise trained dog can be a distressful scene for the uninitiated.
If I knew what you were talking about I would buy a Parrot. Are you a Politician by chance?
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here?
I apologize for being so unclear.
Hope this is better: Most people imo that require nothing from their pets do not understand the need for some correction in proofing dog behaviour. Mild aversives, used appropiately and fairly can still be viewed as abusive by many outside of dog training. By adversives, I mean: a mild leash jerk; a stare; a low growl and; short periods of isolation.
I'll just end by quoting a well known bible verse :"he who is without sin can cast the first stone"?
Sorry Newf, I know exactly what you mean, it was Cynic's opinion I was after, you made yourself perfectly clear. I doubt there's a single person on here who has never, ever snatched at the lead, muttered imprecations, put the dog away while they calmed down, etc., etc.. I try to be positive in my training but I freely admit there have been a few times when I have felt the need to let fly with some strong language in order to let the dogs know what I honestly felt about their actions...
I agree with you, thats the trouble with fora, you can never prove contributors are without sin, no matter how much stone slinging they do!
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
beechessam wrote:I don't kick or wield a stick, but not swearing? That's going too far! I've often stopped mine from moving and even in mid flight with a very quick "don't you !!!!! Dare!" Not sure it would have the same effect without the expletives!
I agree swearing ban is unacceptable PCness. I once tried to swear with a clicker but it broke and got flung after the bogoff monster. And I swore anyway.
