Bet,

I hate to say this but Prey drive with other dogs is not in the right place. That is more play and social drive instead. I try not to stereotype any dogs but you may be right that if you are going to successfully SCHH the dog you will need a very good evaluation from a very experienced person and lots n lots of effort assuming she does have the right drive. You will need a very good trainer for that too. For now, I'd say go positive with her.

Without going into the details of reflexive avoidance training using mowers two ... (Advanced Training)... I will post about leash corrections in general and on a basic level.

The first thing you should be concerned about with this form of aversive is that you are making a clear association fro the dog between the command and correction. This pairing needs to be very close with the command and then followed immediately and ideally less than 1 second and not past the 1.3 seconds. (I wish I could find that study but that is what I was taught.)

The second thing you need to learn about corrections is this: If you are going to correct your dog, those corrections need to be at the level needed to illicit an avoidance response. This is to say the correction is a "motivational correction" and what that means is the dog will work to avoid that event from happening again if it can. Many people have a problem with corrections and end up correcting their dog over and over and this just desensitizing the dog to the punishment. when done right the first time very few corrections are needed modify its behavior even in the most delinquent of dogs.
The next thing you want to think about is consistency. Be fair and make clear rules and keep them. Sometimes it is best to establish what it is you want to accomplish with a correction before you set off jerking the leash. Make part of that assessment about how you will positively reinforce the dog for doing the right behavior. After a correction, there should be an equal amount of positive reinforcement for doing the right behavior. I nice window of learning.
Finally you need to be fair to the dog, corrections/punishment should never be used in anger.

Command - correct - praise - reward.

The actual basic leash correction needs to be a POP on the leash not a PULL and choke.

Sooo... effective corrections must be: well timed, Intense, Immediate and Consistent

Any breakdown in this and you will see confusion represented in a loss of working drive and general attitude.

When done right it has no adverse effect on the dog's life because it is SHORT TERM. This means do it right, get it over with, live long and happy.

One last thing about leash corrections:

I as a professional know and use rewards but I will also stand as a solid voice for sanity and recognize the benefits of having control of my dog beyond the effectivness of reward value vs. enviroment. I know it is quite possible to control your dog and have him still love you and be a happy working

Though the dog is not a wolf, he is a descendent of this species. So, there is absolutely no "natural" reason to feel guilty about leading your dog or controlling his behavior. In fact, domestication has made it natural and needed. "Follow the leader" is is deeply rooted into his genetic makeup. A real personal relationship will flourish if if you are balanced and stable enough to lead him, guide him, and connect with
love toward him.

Remember a pack is not a democracy nor is it a dictatorship. Still, you must learn to be a leader in order to maintain your dog's overall mental stability and preserve his ability to adapt to uncertain environments away from his home. You are the example and not just the leash holder or treat giver.

I hope this helped.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Hasley:
If you are going to correct your dog, those corrections need to be at the level needed to illicit an avoidance response.

First, no responses are "illicited"; reflexes are "elicited" . But avoidance responses are emitted , not elicited anyway. If you're going to throw around things like Mowrer's Two-Factor Theory of Secondary Reinforcment as if you're some learning theory guru, at least get the terms right.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Hasley:
If you are going to correct your dog, those corrections need to be at the level needed to illicit an avoidance response.

First, no responses are "illicited"; reflexes are "elicited" . But avoidance responses are emitted , not elicited anyway. If you're going to throw around things like Mowrer's Two-Factor Theory of Secondary Reinforcment as if you're some learning theory guru, at least get the terms right.

You are right Lee. I should have proof read my post and ran a spell check on all the words. I also misspelled Mowrer but I doubt I will get any angry response or hate mail for it. I do understand your point of it being confusing to use the wrong word and I am glad you understood what I was trying to say and I hope others did too. Thanks.

For others who want to know more about Mowrer's Two-Factor Theory of Avoidance or Mowrer's Two-process Theory of Avoidance

Do a google search and you can find some of the basics. I wanted to avoid it in this conversation but since the can of worms is open...You will understand what all the happy flapping and hand slapping is about when you read those post.

http://www.leerburg.com/ubb//ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000067


http://www.leerburg.com/ubb//ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=147;t=000656

and

http://www.leerburg.com/ubb//ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=147;t=000652

and

http://www.leerburg.com/ubb//ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000047;p=2#000050


I suggest you read about Two-Factor Theory of Avoidance before you read the post in order to have clarity about the subjects we are debating. My application and messing around with this theory along with some adaptations for training shouldn't be considered a crime and for some it maybe is/was a learning opportunity. At least it makes one think and hope it is interesting to some even if it is not appreciated by others.

I now know other "Gurus" around here have much to teach me. Things like typing, spelling and so on. I don't have a mountain of books around me or a closet of videos. What I do have right now is a full kennel and 3 new clients with litters to evaluate this afternoon (no doubt wrong) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> so I better get back to it.

Not that anyone cares, but... avoidance conditioning was identified and studied long before Mowrer. Mowrer's contribution to the field of study was to postulate a theory as to how it worked - what processes were going on. His theory has been largely discredited and the single factor theory of avoidance conditioning is the one most widely accepted. No dog trainer needs to know the difference between the two theories to learn how to effectively utilize avoidance conditioning in their training programs - it's been discussed in this forum countless times.

Also, the CC portion of the theory only involves the emotional state of the animal. The portion we are interested in is the action and response to the stimulus, the command, abd that is easily explained through normal reinforment model. The increase in the speed of the response isn't a function of the fear of correction, but the reinforcement (escape) of the negative stimulus. The rate at which the fear occurs is unchanged, unless you have lousy timing that improves with practice.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Hasley:


I now know other "Gurus" around here have much to teach me. Things like typing, spelling and so on. I don't have a mountain of books around me or a closet of videos. What I do have right now is a full kennel and 3 new clients with litters to evaluate this afternoon (no doubt wrong) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> so I better get back to it.

Dennis, it is quite obvious to me that you have a problem with both the moderation and the general make-up of the posters on the board. If you are so unhappy why do you not go forward and MAKE YOUR OWN bulliten board, where you can attract and entertain "real dog trainers" like yourself. To repeatedly imply that you are above all other contributors here only proves that you still have much to learn.

After all- we must be wasting quite a bit of your valuable time here. :rolleyes:

Deanna, I am not unhappy and I don't think a good discussion and advice is a waste of web space. I learn a lot here really or at least I get a chance to think about what people are posting.

I read much more then I post and as a whole I think people have liked them. I don't make snappy or snide remarks to anyone asking a question and I try to be patient and respectful to those who disagree on the points of conversation. The rest I do my best in answering it and yes I give a real professional answer like it or not when it comes to training.

If the forum is supposed to be a place where only the novice and new should hang out or a place where only a select few can answer and dictate then why call it a discussion at all?

The fact is I for the most part appreciate the moderation of the topics here but I don't liked to be sniped especially when I am giving an honest answer or asking an honest question.

I learn every day something new it seems. Even the new dog owner has some interesting observations at times I think and I really take my time and think about what they are asking or tying to say. When I take a position I can defend it pretty well even without calling people names or having avoidance to reading the points others postulate against mine. I stay within the rules of the forum and I think I have helped more then a few here because I get nice emails and PM's about my post from others.

That is a bad thing?

I respect those who show respect nothing more or less. Forgive me if I don't read in awe of others understanding at times and I don't expect them to be in awe of mine.

First off, Dennis, I never said this board was only for the new. You have implied thoughout your posts here that since you are "actually doing it" you somehow know more. OK, GREAT.. so I will not say you do not work with more dogs in a given week than I do. No problem there, but I do not feel the need to refer to others as people who only have 'books and a closet of videos'.

Secondly, I also recieve many emails and PM's daily from members of the board. So what! I even get them ABOUT you! That doesn't make me right or wrong on anything. What annoys me most about you is that even when you are dead wrong you must reply with a 500 word essay as a reply. I know I am not the only one who rarely even bothers to read your posts anymore.

Frankly, it is quite obvious from your posting history lately that you do not take 'hints' well.

You make my job very unpleasant.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
Not that anyone cares, but... avoidance conditioning was identified and studied long before Mowrer. Mowrer's contribution to the field of study was to postulate a theory as to how it worked - what processes were going on. His theory has been largely discredited and the single factor theory of avoidance conditioning is the one most widely accepted. No dog trainer needs to know the difference between the two theories to learn how to effectively utilize avoidance conditioning in their training programs - it's been discussed in this forum countless times.

Discreditied? umm...no. It is the cutting edge and most modern look at behavior.

In fact, behaviour therapists heve developed an effective treatment based on conditioning theory, and specifically using Mowrer's two factor theory of avoidance with a 90% effective rating in eliminating panic disorder.

Here is a quote for you:

More than the research and writings of any other single pioneer, behavioral psychologist, those of 0. Hobart Mowrer made contemporary, comprehensive behavior therapy possible...

Another Quote:

Mowrer's firmly supported Two-Factor Learning Theory made this fact obvious: If consciousness and emotions had not already existed, equivalent concepts would have had to be invented to serve their essential survival functions.

2. Empirical evidence that classical or respondent conditioning is the only type. In addition, during the conditioning process, the former "neutral" stimulus never acquires a new property. Instead, it becomes the subject's new, conditioned sign or cue for associated learned autonomic nervous system responses to that formerly "neutral" stimulus.

3. Empirical evidence that there are two types of behavioral learning:
(1) operant or instrumental and
(2) sign or cue learning. But they both are byproducts of associated, conditioned impelling emotional drives (e.g., fear, hope, anger, etc.) or other responses controlled by the brain's autonomic nervous system.

4. Empirical evidence that the main survival functions of learned behavioral signs and cues seem to be alerting the concerned subjects to possible positive or negative changes in their current situation and to help them prepare for possibly needed self-protective or other survival related actions.

and others.

BOTH are from The Encyclopedia of Mental Health, Academic Press, 1998.


Get it?

Learning how to better correct the dog with a leash is a worthy cause/ Much more worthy than being right and it is all I am trying to and have explored. With modifications, there is something to be learned here...