 Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: randy allen ]
#247620 - 07/22/2009 08:36 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-09-2007
Posts: 556
Loc: Upstate NY
 Offline |
|
I just don't see leash corrections as avoidance training... 
I look at "leash work" as giving direction -- with or without a correction.
Avoidance training - to me - is shutting down the drive of the dog usually with too strong of a verbal, leash or stim correction.
Katie
SG S'Eliana vom Kraftwerk IPO3,AD,CGC,KKL1
Jaya von der Olgameister AD, CGC
Pierre, the Poodle! |
 Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: Katie O'Connor ]
#247625 - 07/22/2009 08:53 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-16-2007
Posts: 2365
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| Offline |
|
Do you differentiate between shutting down the dog and shutting down it's drive? (Just curious)
I don't know, I think I agree with Randy. It's a continuum, in my mind, but I think all but the lightest leash work has some level of avoidance in it. For instance, for me, if Teagan turns her head to stare at some dog behind us, I pop her. Hard enough to have her turn back - I am communicating to her, yes, but I'm also using avoidance. I want her to know that if she turns to stare at a dog - a)I don't want her to/she's not allowed to/I will not allow her to; and b)she will have unpleasant physical consquences (avoidance) (not world-ending unpleasant, but unpleasant). The pop is both, in that specific case, unless I've lost my mind (possible, possible). I don't shut her down, not by a long shot, but I am using some avoidance.
Teagan!
 |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: Jennifer Mullen ]
#247631 - 07/22/2009 09:23 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-09-2007
Posts: 556
Loc: Upstate NY
| Offline |
|
In my mind -- shutting down the dog = taking it out of drive to some degree.
To me, Jennifer, what you describe above is more giving Teagan direction to "stay with me" -- you could certainly take that a step further and issue a hard correction that then puts her in avoidance of the other dog.
I think it's just symantics as to why I'm not understanding Jennifer's and/or Randy's perspectives. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing; just seeing it differently.
Sorry, Kori -- I'll stop hijacking your thread!
Katie
SG S'Eliana vom Kraftwerk IPO3,AD,CGC,KKL1
Jaya von der Olgameister AD, CGC
Pierre, the Poodle! |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: Katie O'Connor ]
#247633 - 07/22/2009 09:32 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-16-2007
Posts: 2365
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| Offline |
|
In my mind -- shutting down the dog = taking it out of drive to some degree.
To me, Jennifer, what you describe above is more giving Teagan direction to "stay with me" -- you could certainly take that a step further and issue a hard correction that then puts her in avoidance of the other dog.
I think it's just symantics as to why I'm not understanding Jennifer's and/or Randy's perspectives. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing; just seeing it differently.
Sorry, Kori -- I'll stop hijacking your thread!
Katie
I'll stop hijacking too, after this.
I see what you're saying Katie, I guess, when I issue that correction to Teagan, it is fairly hard, b/c while I'm doing the positive 'don't kill dogs' work with her, I also want her to know that I won't tolerate certain things. So it's harder than just a 'hey, stay with me' pop to communicate.
It may be a matter of semantics. Like I said, I think there's a continuum here, and I think we just are using the terms at different points.
Teagan!
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: Katie O'Connor ]
#247635 - 07/22/2009 09:56 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-22-2007
Posts: 2531
Loc: S. Florida
| Offline |
|
I just don't see leash corrections as avoidance training...
I look at "leash work" as giving direction -- with or without a correction.
Katie
I agree...
I think in the strictest definition of avoidance training (from my limited understanding, anyway), a leash correction would not be considered to fall into that category.
It's like what Katie described before; ie e-collar stim (not a nick) that is constant until the dog complies with the command.
Jenn, when you correct Teagan for staring, do you say 'No!' then pop the leash? I would view that type of correction as correcting for a pack structure infraction, since you as pack leader don't want her staring down other dogs. Or am I viewing this wrong?
and to add: so when you issue a 'No!' command, is the dog complying to avoid a correction or because it respects you as pack leader? (hey,, I know a lot of this is just symantics, but it's an interesting thread!)
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: Jennifer Mullen ]
#247636 - 07/22/2009 10:15 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
No, I disagree.
It's not a matter of semantics. Leash corrections has it's base in avoidance. It is negative enforcement. No?
Negative enough for one reason or another in the dogs mind that he doesn't want it to happen again. He avoids the behavior that causes it.
To further try and show, what to me, is a distinct line between what separate leash corrections and avoidance training, look at it this way.
Leash corrections work aim and intent is a building endeavor.
Avoidance training is a road block. Bridge out. Off the map. That path doesn't exist.
See the difference? One, you and your dog are building (or attempting to). The other, you don't even allow the first brick to laid.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Had a "real" test with the e-collar this evening..
[Re: randy allen ]
#247637 - 07/22/2009 10:25 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-16-2007
Posts: 2365
Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| Offline |
|
Lynne, I say 'No!' and correct. I don't give any time for her to comply, if she stares, she gets corrected, bottom line. So, as Randy said, I am negatively reinforcing her, so, in my mind, avoidance.
I should note for obedience commands I allow her to obey/not obey before she would be corrected. For this, b/c I see it as a pack issue as well as a safety issue (for other dogs), if she displays the behaviour, she gets corrected, bottom line.
Teagan!
|
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
