Dog Chat :: View topic

Rugby · New Here

I think that's a very good point Pingu. I have know people who have had problems with their dogs, they have tried a training method to modify the behaviour, but only try it for a few weeks.

I think it's unrealistic to expect sudden changes with any method, esp when dealing with aggression, phobias etc. So being consistant is often the difference between failure and success.

I recently visited a training club which uses Reward Only Training, and i could see for myself that the dogs were very well behaved and i saw no reason to believe that those dogs had behavioural problems from only using rewards in training. However, i would not class myself as experienced, therefore there may be situations in which rewards ALONE may not be the best approach.

I be interested to know if anyone know of a situation in which reward ONLY training is not the best thing for the dog?

maryjohn · New Puppy

Firstly I would like to say I am gratefull for the existance of the dogchat forum, without this site my life and my dogs life would be a downward spiral of mayhem as it was before I came here in Oct last, if anyone wants to read my post I found one under thet title

>is it possible to train a dog to not kill chickens? <

I also had some comments in controversial but dont know which ones.

Thankfully and like the vast, vast majority of people who come here with serious dog problems I found that although there were a lot of people still advocating so called positive and treat training methods of training there were some, in fact two, Denise and JoJo who did not.

It has been my good fortune to have taken a course with JoJo, on contract and not only 100% succesfull my dog was closer and responding more to me within a week after assesment than at any time in the eighteen months of exploitation at behaviourist reward only classes, it is the closeness as well as the obedience which emerges from real training.

Rugby, drives are not instincts so why do you write on things when you do not even know what those things are. My dog, as a result of a JoJo's teachings, is trained on its drives, instincts are unchangable by the envioronment, stil I am not going into that here, no ned to JoJo has defined drives and instinct under the controversial topic index, if you want to learn Rugby go look at What is instinct, what is drive.

I am sure that only a minority of people who read these posts actualy take part in them and to those people I want to say this.

JoJo is one of the highest qualified dog trainers in the UK in civilian working dog recognitions, and I know why. I also know there are currently relevant things he is involved in which cannot be mentioned on the net.

Apart from that, looking at this post the reason these treat trainers are against him is that they are scared stiff of people wanting contracts, the reason they are scared is because they exploit people for months years without results.

Most trainers simply cannot be bothered posting on these sites and little wonder, JoJo is one who persists and persists to get people to start to insist on high standards from those who are running trainingclasses and giveing all kinds of bull to people who were in my position untill Oct last.

My purpose here is to say this, if you go to Jan Fennel, or Jo Bloggs INSIST on a contract and ensure if it is an obedience course that it does not last more than 7 weeks unless it is educational and then no more than 10. Haveing had 18 months of treats and stuff my advice is stay away.

One of my previous correspondences here again is under the is it possible to train a dog to not kill chickens?

Good luck to all onlookers, bye Jo.

SilverWolf · Dogaholic

I hope I don't have to lock another topic.

Jojo,

You seem determined to take the 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong' attitude. While you clearly disagree with treat training methods, plenty of people use them successfully with all manner of dogs. As I have said before, every dog is different and there is no single training method that has a 100% success rate with every dog.

You talk about 'rank' an awful lot, as though you feel dogs need to be subservient to people. I find dogs work far better in a team with the handler, as a partnership, rather than a master/slave relationship. Drives are critical to an understanding of canine motivation, but they are not the whole of the equation. You completely neglect instincts, for example. Dogs have two major instincts: survival and group or 'pack' instincts. Drives are the way in which the dog fulfils his instincts: so the dog has a prey drive, fight/flight drive etc. in the interests of self-preservation (survival instinct) and your 'rank' drive would come under his grouping instinct. While trainers are largely divided on what is 'instinct' and what is 'drive' (and the above would be my own opinions), I have never met anyone before who entirely neglects to mention instinct in conjunction with behavioural motivation.

I also disagree with your saying that not all dogs need obedience training. All dogs need to be taught basic commands and what is/isn't acceptable, no matter their temperament. A 'gentle' temperament makes it easier to teach these lessons, but whether you own a timid Chihuahua or a balshy Mastiff, obedience is essential.

As an aside: I would never smoke around dogs, particularly when training. It masks your scent with a pretty nasty smell, and since dogs have such sensitive noses, it can be very off-putting.

What you describe as 'treat-training' is an excellent example of someone not understanding the methodology. As I said before, if you toss a dog a treat every time he performs a behaviour and never teach him to do the same thing when the treat is not in sight or not even coming, you are not training him correctly. You are simply teaching him to follow the food. This training does not produce good results. However, if you train using a lure method and then phase out the food reward, you end up with a dog who will work for you as and when requested, not expecting a reward, but enjoying it all the same if it does come. You really ought to visit some classes where they practise these methods, you never know, you might actually change your mind.

"Can you tell me why these reward only trainers do not ensure the client tries the method first and then gets a contract?"

Might I point out a flaw in your own contract? You say that clients may not use any other methods other than those you advise - fair enough. So, how do you KNOW they stick to this? Let's say I offer out such a contract and am helping a client teach their dog to walk nicely on a lead. When I am not there and the client is out walking the dog, the dog sees a squirrel on the other side of the road and yanks on the leash. Having almost been dragged into the path of an oncoming car, and so unthinking, the owner screams "NOOOO! BAD DOG!" and yanks him back towards her. Because I have not recommended this method of correction, the contract would be void: but there are a few possible outcomes.

1) The owner does not mention the error, but the dog does not suffer a setback here, the dog learns to walk nicely on a lead and I am paid. Everyone's happy, despite the mishap.
2) The dog reacts badly to the correction and begins to behave oddly on the leash - lagging behind or forging ahead. The client neglects to mention the mishap but I believe another method has been used. The client assures me not, but is annoyed when the dog is not walking well by the time the contract is up. I cannot prove anything, it is the client's word against my own. Should I get paid?
3) The owner tells me of the mishap and I instantly refuse to continue with lessons. The dog continues pulling on the lead, making his own life hell and bringing his owners a lot of unhappiness too.

I could go on, but you get the picture. There are loopholes, cases where it is your word against theirs. It is not a solid contract.

You cannot guarantee results in all aspects of dog training in a specified period of time, because every dog is different as is every problem. Some dogs can grasp basic obedience in a matter of days, others take weeks. Just as some people might take years to pass a driving test where as some master it in months, some dogs find it hard to grasp certain exercises while others find them easy. Perhaps those who are selective about the dogs they work with can give this kind of guarantee, and are protected by loopholes as previously mentioned: if a dog does not get it right in the allotted time, his owners probably tried something you hadn't recommended. I'm not attacking here, just pointing this out.

Everyone works in a different way. I have never employed an electrician who gave me a contract to say "If I can't fix this within an hour, you don't have to pay me." My electricians always tell me they charge by the hour, and I foot the bill. If they can't work it out in two hours, I have to pay them for however long it takes - but as long as the problem gets fixed, I don't care. If the problem remains, I would probably still have to pay out for the time they have expended: such is life. You can help yourself by looking into who you employ beforehand, but you still have no guarantees.

It would be great if everyone could offer a watertight contract to their clients. However, not all trainers/behaviourists can say initially how long a treatment will take. If you are dealing with a very aggressive dog, you can't take a look at him and say... "Oooo... this one will be a two-monther". Behaviourists work with such a wide range of dogs and problems that a single contract would just not work. Every case is different. There is not set schedule to follow because every dog is learning something different.

It is often another matter if you are offering an obedience course with selected animals. There are many puppy classes, for example, that promise XYZ by the end of an X week course, and they deliver. Happy clients. There are many adult obedience classes who make similar promises, and 9 times out of 10 they deliver... or they refer real 'problem' dogs to get help before coming back to complete the classes. Again, everyone works in different ways. The job a behaviourist does is NOT the same as someone who simply trains a dog to obey commands.

Think this is long enough. =/

SilverWolf · Dogaholic

Ahhh, Maryjohn. Nice to see you again. Where have you been?

SilverWolf · Dogaholic

Rugby,

Sometimes dogs get very excited or obsessive over treats/toys and as a result of this over-stimulation, they end up being unable to listen to what you are asking and instead might hurl themselves at the reward and not actually take in the exercise. In these cases, teaching the dog to target a hand, stick etc. and lure them in this way may be beneficial, as this means they can actually concentrate on what they are doing!

When you say 'reward only', do you mean that no corrections are ever issued? Dogs do need to be made aware of their boundaries, but I do have very firm views on what is a correction and what is a punishment. Punishment should never be used - it is a human concept that has no place with domestic dogs - correction when applied properly is necessary in most cases. Correction can be as little as a 'No', and in most cases once the dog understands the word, this is all it takes. Since you cannot explain to a dog why he cannot do something (eg. strolling down the middle of a road is pretty suicidal, don't do it!) you have to instead tell the dog: "Don't do that because it makes me unhappy. Do this instead because this does make me happy." Once the lesson is understood, if the bond is there, most dogs will comply willingly and happily.

jojo · Dogaholic

Well your long and drawn out tonight silverwolf and combined with all the other behaviourists on here who are against offering try before you buy contracts I will not attempt to muster up a reply, not even sure one is needed, the behaviourist anti contract stance says it all!

Sue · New Here

This seems to be a very contentious issue and has also got a little sidetracked! I believe that there are a lot of different theories out there and that we are always learning more about dog behaviour all the time. I have also found that sticking rigidly to one trainer's method and ignoring what anyone else is saying could lead to problems; its best to keep an open mind and also bear in mind that no two dogs or situations are always the same. I have read Jan Fennel's books and did think that some of her methods sounded a little too rigid and didn't adapt well to normal life. However, one tip I found very usefull was the 5 minute rule. This entails ignoring the dog for 5 minutes before leaving him alone and doing the same upon your return. It is VERY hard to do at first, it seems cruel and unnatural not to greet your best friend, especially when they are so pleased to see you, however, this worked amazingly well on two rescue dogs I was fostering who had severe separation anxiety. I don't usually adhere to this all the time, unless the dog I am fostering shows signs of stress at being left alone, but I always try not to hype the dog up too much when coming home as a general rule. In other words, take all the advice you can and try to go with what fits with you and your dog and what instintively feels right, bearing in mind, of course, that all methods used should be kind and make the dog want to do what you are asking him to. Another reason why this forum is so great! Some of us may disagree from time to time, but everyone seems to have dogs' welfare in mind and are able to pass on some helpfull advice gained from their own experience.

SilverWolf · Dogaholic

And you are so brief, Jojo! Need time to find some answers?

I am not 'anti-contract' but would love to know how exactly you would put together a contract for a behaviourist dealing with many different problems rather than a set pattern of training. If you could show me a valid contract which does not have gaping holes in it, I would be most interested.

Rugby · New Here

SilverWolf,

I meant training that only uses rewards, and no corrections.

As you can gather, i have not yet had a situation that has needed to involve correction methods. So i'd like to be clear on exactly what point correction turns into punishment. Obviously timing would be involved, but i'd like to know more about what corrections involve? I've only heard of nose flicking and stepping on paws being used by trainers. Do choke chains count as corrections?

MaryJohn,

You obviously think very highly of JoJo. I glad that method worked so well for you. I have read the post on drives and i understood and respected the points made. It's not that i disagree with this opinion. I do not believe that instinct alone is what drives are, i did not say this but i have no reason to go into details, i'm sure no one is interested in seeing a page of proof. JoJo's points are very valid, and i'll be the first to say that i have read some great advice from JoJo. But i'm also interested in different approaches.

As for "the reason these treat trainers are against him is that they are scared stiff of people wanting contracts". I think that comment is an insult to all GOOD treat trainers. As with all thing there are bad trainers out there, but not all of them are treat trainers. I think contracts are good idea's and would make people feel more secure in the service they will be provided. However, i don't know how anyone can guarantee that they will "cure" or modify in a certain amount of time. I think we all agree that all dogs are different, and learn at different speeds. Some dog's (eg abused 6 yr recue dogs) may take longer than a young dog from a stable experienced home that may pull on the lead. I'd be very impressed if all problems could be "fixed" in no longer than 8 weeks. Is this always possible?

jojo · Dogaholic

Silverwolf,

"I also disagree with your saying that not all dogs need obedience training"

JoJo,
Really Silverwolf, must you misquote and change the meaning of what I say?

I said MANY times and on MANY different posts, some dogs do not need FORMAL obedience training.
_______________________________________

Rugby, punishment is a technical term in animal learning (including man), it means anything which the ANIMAL does not perceive as being of benefit to it.

E.G. if a dog sniffs nettles it gets stung, repetition is unlikely to recurred, it usually happens once in a dogs lifetime and never again, it 'learns' that plants with that smell have no benefits by being sniffed and most dogs, not all as some are immune or not sensitive to them, are risk free for the rest of their lives from that negative stimulus.

Clicker trained Dolphins are taught to jump for fish as the Dolphin catches the fish the trainer clicks, catching the fish is the positive stimulus or reward.

The next time the trainer holds the fish higher, the Dolphin has geared himself for the previous height he is trained for, he misses the heightened fish, that’s punishment, next time he jumps higher and gets it, reward punishment sequence.

Corrections, negative stimulus, they are the same thing. Tell a child till your blue in the face "Don't run you will fall", the child ignores parent and runs several times without problems and enjoys it, reward.

On one occasion it falls, that is a punishment, negative stimulus or correction, after that it takes more care sooner or later most children fall and learn, they 'correct' their behaviour.

Athletes who are highly motivated to win, one trains daily, all the right food, right equipment and keeps to his schedule he also like to drink, smoke and late nights but he forgoes the late nights etc, eats health foods and stops smoking ( punishments)

Another likes drinking and smoking as well as unhealthy food and late nights out but instead of punishing himself by deprivation of his late nights etc he does the party thing, falls behind in fitness, all this is reward behaviour.

The fit one wins as a result of his fitness, reward, the party animal looses, punishment, he might change his behaviour and accept short term punishments to win next time.

A recent example of this was Lennox Lewis who had not trained properly for the Tyson fight, he lost ( punishment ), next time he trained to peak and won (reward).

Not training properly was Lewis's short term reward or positive behaviour, the punishment or negative consequence was he lost.

A dog chews the couch this is reward behaviour, you offer it a toy, it prefers chewing the couch after trying both, all animals behave towards a stimulus which it experiences as having the greater benefit and most favourable consequence so the toy is not a reward, only the human wanted it to be, a consequence of not treating the dog as another species.

In dogs it is what the DOG perceives as the most favourable consequence not what we would like him to perceive, toys are a human concept a dog has no concept of toy.

These cross samples are how punishments or negative stimulus help people and animals learn, they are technical terms and are not intended to be interpreted as the everyday use of the words.

You cannot interpret a choke chain as a punishment device because they very rarely have the desired effect, they are dangerous and should not be used but they are not much more dangerous than jerking on a flat buckle collar which also has little effect, if they have no effect they are not punishments, corrections or negative stimulus whichever word you choose.

Dogs which have not been trained or where training classes fail the owner the dog often pulls on a lead whether choke chain or flat buckle but the dog experiences the pulling as not having any unwanted consequences greater than the degree of prey drive present at the time ( pulling is always done in prey drive unless it is after another dog to fight, or mate, maternal drive).

Because they have little or no effect in changing behaviour they are not punishments, corrections or negative stimulus ( all the same thing) a punishment is only a punishment or correction if it changes the behaviour with very few repetitions and with only the rare occasional need for reinforcement as does reward need occasional reinforcement.

BUT in dog training the correction must stimulate the pack and rank drive to develop the relationship and maintain the hierarchy of the pack ( the owner and family)

Pingu · Site Admin

"JoJo is one of the highest qualified dog trainers in the UK in civilian working dog recognitions,

then why is he so reluctant to let everyone know his background and qualifications? I do not doubt that JoJo has achieved success in what he does but by insisting on seeing everyone elses background and pointedly refusing to divulge his own only serves to lower any credibility he has.

"and I know why. I also know there are currently relevant things he is involved in which cannot be mentioned on the net. "

I am struggling here to think of any dog realted activity (that is legal) that would be covered by this. I know people involved in training drugs and explosive search dogs that talk quite openly about their work.

At the end of the day different methods work for different people in different circumstances. I have to admit that I do not know an awful lot about training purely on drives but as the stuff I do is normally with "cruelty cases" I find positive reinforcement methods seem to work well. I am not a "behaviourist", I also do not charge for the work I do but I do get results with dogs that have little reason to trust humans.

JoJo you would find people would be a lot more receptive to your posts if they were not so aggressive. I would welcome the opertunity to learn more about drive based training but am reluctant to do so if all I will get in reply is a torrent of abuse.

tempest · Regular

The reason we visit the site (well one of the main reasons for most of us I'm sure) is to gain advice. There are a lot of experienced animal handlers here who's advice varies greatly, all is valuable advice, it's just a matter of finding a method which advice suits the owner and the pet. Let's not put each other down, let's hear the advice then make a conscious decision whether or not it's suitable for our particular case. If not, that doesn't make it wrong. There's no need for these sarcastic snide comments, aren't we all aiming towards the same intentions? Come on guys! Rolling Eyes

jojo · Dogaholic

Pingu, please copy and past here any writeing of mine where I asked someone what their background in dog training was PRIOR to them asking me.

I so far haven't bothered putting much effort into writeing mine and I can tel after a few posts how much knowledge the person has or not as the case maybe.

Pingu,
but as the stuff I do is normally with "cruelty cases" I find positive reinforcement methods seem to work well. I am not

JoJo,

I have stressed and stressed and stressed, time and time again that unless I personaly state otherwise, at no time am I refereing to rescue dogs which must be seen as INDIVIDUAL cases, you have seen this from me before. Rescue dogs can range from dogs which might never be able to face more than one person again because of fear,to dogs which will take anyones stomach out if theyblink the wrong eyelid and I do not mean through fear.

Occasionaly I might comment to someone who takes a dog which has had a stable home and the onwer has given it up for personal reasons or occasionaly when someone writes or implies that there is nothing wrong with the rescue dogs background and even then its very rare for me.

guest · Guest

sorry forgot to log on

Its pingu

OK then you have previously asked me about my background and experiences and I have replied giving the details. Does this now mean you will be courteous enough to do the same?

I am not asking this to be nosey (well maybe a little) but it would help understand what angle you are comming from when reading your posts.

Please excuse me here - I am not being deliberatly dense or argumentative but dont want to read though all the previous posts to get the answers to the following questions.

Do you work with rescue dogs?

Do you work with dogs that exhibit "problem" behaviour?

If not then what type of dogs do you do your behavioural work with?

The training on drives obviously works very well in some situations, and for certain dogs, but if this is the only method you use (and I am not suggesting that this is the only method you personally employ) then there will be times when it is not the most appropriate method. Similarly purely treat based training isnt going to get you very far with an overtly agreesive dog when you are trying to treat the agression. Its the ability to be able to combine various methods and to transfer the knowledge of what you are doing to the owner that makes a good trainer/behaviourist.

Like I said I am interested in learning more about drive based approaches but finding an easy to understand introduction to them is proving difficult.

jojo · Dogaholic

Pingu
Do you work with rescue dogs?

JoJo
Not these days

Pingu
Do you work with dogs that exhibit "problem" behaviour?

JoJo
Yes, even my own dog did, just this one not the rest. He was in advance at six months and then had veterinary problems so I stopped his training at six months, not one single command until about 14 months.

Pingue
If not then what type of dogs do you do your behavioural work with?

JoJo,
I do not accept the term ‘behavioural work’, it’s basic obedience training nothing more, the dogs do not have any behavioural problems as that implies some kind of veterinary problem with the dog causing the unwanted behaviour.

I’ll write most about me experience when I am ready and have time.

SilverWolf · Dogaholic

Rugby,

I define 'punishment' entirely as a human concept. It is inherent in our society: if someone does something wrong, we want them to 'pay' for this mistake. Punishment therefore has no place in dog training. Correction is a method of showing the dog that he has made a mistake, and indeed following up by showing him how to put it right. Correction is not effective if it is not followed up like this - why say 'NO!' when you can say 'I don't like that, I would rather you do this'.

Corrections in training should be only as great as required to stop the behaviour. No more, no less. For some dogs a stern look is enough to stop them dead in their tracks, and it makes no sense to cry 'NO!' at such dogs when lesser force (a look) can be applied to the same effect. Using more force than required damages your relationship with the dog (makes him distrustful of you) and may permanently damage him physically or mentally, depending on what is done.

It is impossible to give a 'standard' correction because it is certainly different for every dog. It is something best judged by the owner, as they usually know the dog best. Most dogs who initially require a firmer correction can ultimately be taught to respond to a cue such as 'No!', learning by association: just before a correction is given, the owner can say 'No!' and then perform the correction. Pretty quickly, the second stage can be deleted from the equation as the dog will start to respond to the cue word itself.

Nose flicking and stepping on paws are definitely punishment - I would never use these methods or recommend anyone else did. There is no need to physically hurt your dog to have him listen to you or to tell him that you do not like his current behaviour. Often dogs have no way of knowing what we do/do not like until they try it once: since they cannot ask 'is this ok?' it hardly seems fair to beat them up for testing the water! Even if your dog does 'know' what he is supposed to be doing and is ignoring you, the best way to overcome the problem is to make him want to work with you, rather than insist he obeys through fear of something bad happening should he not.

Choke chains are probably a method of correction when used properly, but I myself would never put one on a dog. The correct use of a 'choke' chain is actually meant to be that the dog is stopped by the sound the links make when snapped - but the chains are never made as big as they ought to be these days, and almost everyone who uses them does so with the purpose of causing the dog discomfort/pain to make him stop what he is doing. Even if you were to find a well-made check chain with properly sized/weighted links, if the dog is not corrected by the sound, he still moves on to choke himself - punishment - so it would not be a good idea to use the device, in my opinion.

Physical corrections should be avoided in almost all cases: the only exception I can think of would be a leash correction in dire circumstances (eg. you have a horny St Bernard on the end of the lead and he is attempting to mount your neighbour's Poodle). Of course, you should never let such a situation arise in the first place, but if there is ever a time when you must insist on an instant response and are not sure that 'No!' will override your dog's current preoccupation, this type of correction may be required, or even be a reflex reaction - I have seen someone walking by a road with their dog and the dog stepping off the pavement. The force used to retrieve him was execessive to say the least, but it was better than a puppy pancake across the front of the oncoming cars.

***

Jojo,

"The next time the trainer holds the fish higher, the Dolphin has geared himself for the previous height he is trained for, he misses the heightened fish, that’s punishment, next time he jumps higher and gets it, reward punishment sequence."

That would not be an example of punishment, correction or negative stimulus: the animal simply gained no reward for his behaviour. Nothing 'bad' happened for jumping - a punishment would be for him to miss the fish and get slapped for doing so, a correction would be a sign the animal could associate with 'I dislike that behaviour'. The animal simply went unrewarded for that particular jump. If it was a 'punishment' the dolphin would not repeat the behaviour (they catch on very fast) - because the jump was simply unrewarded, the dolphin tries again because he understands the exercise but also understands he did not get it quite right (or he would have been rewarded with the fish).

"A dog chews the couch this is reward behaviour, you offer it a toy, it prefers chewing the couch after trying both, all animals behave towards a stimulus which it experiences as having the greater benefit and most favourable consequence so the toy is not a reward, only the human wanted it to be, a consequence of not treating the dog as another species."

Depends how you do it. If you first tell the dog 'not the couch' and then give him the toy, the dog can make an association and learn. If you don't correct the dog, you are right in that the dog may well think 'So I have both... I'll use whichever I prefer'.

"In dogs it is what the DOG perceives as the most favourable consequence not what we would like him to perceive, toys are a human concept a dog has no concept of toy."

You're right, dogs don't understand 'toy', but they can understand 'this you may chew on, this you may not'. They understand even better 'I praise you for chewing on this, I ignore/chastise you for chewing on this'.

gypsygirl · Dogaholic

the dogs do not have any behavioural problems as that implies some kind of veterinary problem with the dog causing the unwanted behaviour.

Jojo are you suggesting that a behaviour problem is a vetrinary problem.
Are you trying to tell us that a very fearful or and aggressive dog has a vetrinary problem. I think most if not all vets would disagree with you.

gypsygirl · Dogaholic

Sorry I was trying to use the Quote thing but it oviously didn't work.
The first part of the posting is a quote you made Jojo in the previous post.
Could you please explaine it.

jojo · Dogaholic

Hi Gypsy, do you mean this below?

[the dogs do not have any behavioural problems as that implies some kind of veterinary problem with the dog causing the unwanted behaviour.]

Applies to UK;

Behavioural problems is a term used refering humans with psychological disorders, if someone who has no connection or interest in dogs hears that term they think of some kind of person with psychiatric problems of varying sorts.

So, if someone who comes onto dogs and is told the dog has a behavioural problem they would think in terms of something 'psychiatricaly wrong' with the dog, they would then, in all probability, be told it needs 'treating' that is another term implying, but not directly stateing, that there is some kind of medical problem which is 'treatable' (at a hell of a cost). This commercial exploitation is rife here.

Of course they, the owners, are new to dogs and cannot be expected to know there is nothing wrong with them.

All that is wrong with the dogs I have taken on is that they outrank the owner and family and simply need an obedience course and a stimulation threshold developed in the rank drive.

If they had been to a competant obedience course in the first place they should not ever need one again and would know straight away when the dog was begining to manipulate and eal with it themselves without the need to see anyone else.

So, what I mean as well as the above is that disobedience or severly disruptive behaviour, in a dog which has not been properly obedience trained, is just normal dog behaviour, it might well be influenced by lack of excercise and/or lack of drive stimulation such as play, but that is not a disorder it is the result of inadequate home management ( by that I include excercise etc).

But certainly this money makeing idea that the dog needs 'therapy' is absolutly rife here, after these charlatan sessions the relationship between owner and dog is worse because the owner gives up hope, beleiving that 'even' the therapist could do nothing, so more and more dogs are ending up in rescue centres than ever in UK history.

AquaTJ · Regular

I maybe wrong but I would hazard a guess that the majority of the dogs who end up in rescue have never been assessed by anyone. Rescue dogs often appear to be in the troublesome adoloscent phase where their owners have simply lost interest now the puppy is no longer small and cute. They never seem to have undertaken any training at any point and I would be very surprised if such people would pay out for a behaviourist, good or bad.
As far as Jan Fennell goes, I've read her books and enjoyed them. I don't agree with some of her methods but I like to read books on dog training etc and I thought she had some interesting things to say ( wherever these ideas came from )
It's very confusing when conflicting advice is presented as true/false and I think as has been said, you gather as much knowledge as you can and pick out what suits your own circumstances. This obviously goes against the idea that you have to pick one method and stick to it. For example I agree with the idea in JF's book regarding ignoring your dog when you first come into the house, so I do it - but ignoring your dog for days for some misdemeanor seems crazy to me so I wouldn't do that Confused

so I am not using the methods entirely as asked to do so in the books. I'm sure then that consistency is what gets my message across ( most of the time anyway! )