I could hardly believe Denis's post about his dog being caught on spiked railings, because exactly the same thing happened to my fox terrier when I was a child, and I wouldn't have expected one dog to survive an occurrence like that - let alone two! He tried to jump the railings and almost cleared them, but came down with his abdomen apparently impaled on a spike. I couldn't believe it when I got to him, screaming blue murder, to discover that the spike hadn't pierced him - it hadn't even made a mark. I still can't work out how the skin managed to repel a sharp pointed spike. Gruesome  .

   

After that I sort of went round with nothing else to talk about in the park - I must have been in some sort of shock for a week or two - it turned out that several dogs had been caught on them and the point had gone right through some dogs thigh and penetrated several but there were no reports of any deaths.....I was having awful nights for many weeks to the point I did not want to go to sleep....should really have gone to GP and got something in retrospect.

 

yes, dogs do need to be able to do as you want in any conditions and when they have a lot of energy, but when an 8 month old dog comes out of a crate, she needs to settle first.  During this time you can do a little work when interacting with them but more serious training she need to settle.

Especially for you schmoo, the first picture was taken when Bonnie was in rescue, both her back legs were in splints and bandages and she was kept in a crate to stop her running about.  The second picture was taken just after I got Bonnie home, I took to because of the state her back legs were in, but it doesn't show how bad her action is in her back legs, or how crooked they are, just the open sores.








It doesn't have to be wasted time, there are other things you can do during this time, as Bonnie was my husband's dog, I was teaching him how to encourage her to play with him.  When someone has brain damage, they sometimes forget things that they took as normal before.




You can't ask for 100% recall when I have never said that she has a 100% so what is the point in putting that up.



You are forgetting Lou that I don't compete with my dogs, I don't train them for OB, and I don't work with friends dogs, you are twisting things again, I do give them help from time to time, but I also refer them to a trainer, usually Yorkie.  The only rescue dogs I work with are my own except for the dogs I transport to various parts of the country, I have to work this them then or I wouldn't be able to transport them.







There have been some really good trainers on here Schmoo, but none would take this challenge and several of the I contacted to ask why.  I found there reply very interesting, especially as they all said more or less the same thing.  







Very suspicious that nobody has taken this up, I think that says it all.






Were have I said I had 100%, you are putting things there again Lou.  


Quote from: schmoo on February 09, 2007, 08:41: AM
If you competed against whoever accepted the challenge, would your dog be one that was e-collar trained or one that you trained using other methods?


I've never made such a foolish statement.  As the challenge says,

Hmm, I seem to remember posts on here were it has been said by you  that they only way to get a 100% recall is an e collar and you expect that from all your dogs.







Then give it to the rescues and shelters, I am sure that those in the USA would be just as grateful for it as those over here.





Oh dear, back to calling me a liar again Lou, sounds like there is a crack in the record.   When you have watched someone you adore nearly die 3 times and struggle back to health, then money doesn't mean anything, there are a lot more important things than money.  





And my reply was, give it to them yourself, your shelters and rescues need it as much as they do over here.  



 

So you don't have the money even if someone won the challenge, no point in challenging anyone then.



No dear, my dogs all recall 99% except Tilly who is new, but she will, I don't need to prove it, I know they are good, but they are not trained to do OB competitions.  Far too many OB dogs are out of control when not working, it is the same with agility dogs,  my dogs don't work but they are obedient all the time.  


There is a big difference dear, animals don't have to obey a command to keep away from an electric fence, they do when wearing a collar.


I have done several times.



My words against her's, and thank you for the compliment saying I am an expert, but I can assure you that I am not, I know a lot more about horses but wouldn't call myself an expert.  There is so much to learn about them.






No dear, you were jumping to conclusions and saying things had happened that hadn't.


No dear, just having fun, I am not the only one having fun either if judging by the PMs I am getting.

  



That doesn't answer the question of "Why is it so important to you Lou", if you thought it didn't happen why ask.



Like the question about why it is important to you, you didn't answer that.





Yes it is obvious, obvious that you didn't contact them and they don't exist.

 




No dear it isn't reasonable to believe that I did nothing, you are jumping to conclusions with no evidence.





Sticks and stones again, call me a liar when you have nothing else to say.



 

Ever wondered why you are always right and everyone else is wrong,   and don't say it is just me, I am the last in a long list of people you have done this to.   Many have left the board because of the way you twist things and the personal insults that you put about them.



 

I don't need to give proof Lou, you are doing a good job yourself by the way you are contradict yourself all the time.

Because, like I said before, that it just makes the lesson quicker and easier on both you and the dog, and therefore is a practical thing to do.
What is your definition of "excess"? Yes, dogs do need to eventually be able to obey whether they are full of energy or not. But before you can run, you must first learn to walk. Focusing on commands when excited does not come naturally to dogs and thus is a skill that dogs need to develop. This is why conventional wisdom says to teach basic commands in a quiet place with few distractions, like at home, and to practice in that environment before requiring the dog to obey in more distracting environments. Helping the dog to succeed step by step is not a bad thing if it accomplishes the goal of training the dog.  Burning off excess energy is another useful way to help the dog to succeed in the early stages of training.

Again, where are you reading that this is "required" or that this has to be done all the time? If you are disagreeing that this needs to be done, then you are mistaken because nowhere did either Emmy or I or anyone say it is a hard and fast rule. or are you saying that one should never exercise or play with one's dog right before a training session?

If it enhances the training session by helping the dog to concentrate and learn quicker, or makes it easier for you to get your point across to the dog, then it is not a waste of time. To me, a few minutes of playing fetch or other games is not a big deal if it makes the dog more cooperative and receptive to what I'm trying to teach him.


Thanks for the link. It is interesting, but how about the following suggestions for modifying your challenge:
(1) Why not make it a competition between you and whoever it is you are challenging. The competition then is not whether so-and-so said he/she has a 100% recall and you are out to prove them wrong, but simply who has a better recall, thereby settling the score as to who on the forum has the right to diss the other party's claims.

(2) Or, why not lower the prize money to $100. Many more people would take you up for that amount than $1000, therefore you will be able to prove many people wrong in their claims of 100% reliability, whereas now you have not directly proven anyone wrong. (The fact that no one has taken your challenge doesn't necessarily mean you have proven them wrong, just that maybe they think that for that large an amount of money you might cheat on the test since more is at stake and thus they don't trust that the test will be fair.)


You are taking words so literally it is painful to watch. I believe that when pet owners on this forum say they have "99%" reliability, in all honesty that means that in whatever situation their dogs have been up until now in which a recall command was issued, the reliablity was 99%. Such statements have no bearing on the future - after all how could it? Just because a dog has obeyed the last 9 times, doesn't mean will recall on the 10th time (same if the dog was on an e-collar).  Therefore, when someone says "my dog's recall is 99% reliable" logically it can only mean that the dog's recall has been 99% reliable up until now and in the situations the dog has faced in which a recall command was issued. e.g. if a pet dog never faces the kind of distractions that working dogs face, but only faces "easier" distractions, then the criteria for pet dogs to have demonstrated a "99% recall" is much lower than the criteria for a working dog. Thus it is possible to make this claim truthfully without also claiming that one's pet dog just as reliable as a working dog in the working dog's conditions. Given that this is the only logical interpretation, then Emmy's claim is entirely plausible.


 
So you're saying that you would not accept your own challenge? According to the last sentence in your quote above, an e-collar is the only way to "guarantee compliance with your commands."  This contradicts your statement in that same paragraph that you know better than to claim 100% reliability yourself. Can the e-collar guarantee reliability, or not?



Off-topic for awhile, sorry. You said before that you have and do use other methods, including positive methods, in addition to e-collars. For which behaviors, or in what situations, do you use positive methods (positive reinforcement, negative punishment) instead of e-collars (negative reinforcement, positive punishment)?



If no one else, including professional trainers or others who have trained thousands of dogs, have taken up your challenge, then what's the big deal if Emmy doesn't either? Pet dogs don't face as demanding situations and distractions as working dogs, nor do they undergo as many hours of training, so a dog can be an excellent pet even if it does not meet the reliability requirements of a working dog. Emmy is a pet owner, is she not? Maybe her training really is very "good" for her requirements and there would be nothing false or exaggerated about that. Regardless of how "good" her training is or not, what are you trying to accomplish by issuing your challenge and then fixating on the fact that she is ignoring it, as has everyone else who has seen it? that is an honest question by the way.

I have a dog with 100% recall. Trained him electronically as well....



Do I win?

e-remote. Trained my tv and dvd player the same way. Does that make me a bad person? I tried to train my tv the old school way, I asked it to change channels, it refused so I beat it repeatedly with a stick.

Earlier I wrote:

It's a waste of time and we only have so much time to spend with our dogs.  If you want to waste some of your limited training time waiting for a dog to calm down, that's fine with me.  I don't need to.  Dogs are best trained "in drive" and that usually means high levels of excitement. 


It's going to vary with each dog.  I realize that's vague but there's no way to give a specific answer.  Let me try this; most of the dogs I work with are very active and very high in their level of drives.  When you go to take them out of their enclosure they're bouncing, barking and running around at a very high level.  I put the leash on them and go to work.  I don't wait for that energy to "burn off."  Instead I use it as part of the training. 


This is also true of performing a movement on command.  But this skill can be developed when the dog is full of energy if the method is effective. 


"Conventional wisdom" says many things that are outdated and have been proven wrong.  If a method is not very effective then this is the way to do it.  But it's hardly necessary using other methods.  I often go to people's homes to start training but only a few minutes, if that, are spent in the house.  Quickly we're "in the real world" on the sidewalk in front of the house, at the park, in the city, at the training field, working with the dog.  Few dogs need the security of beginning training in the absence of distractions. 


It depends on how long it takes.  I know of one owner who took three years to train her dog to sit in the house using so-called positive methods.  Dogs have relatively short lives; training shouldn't take any longer than necessary. 


I’m specifically addressing Emmy's dog that required four years and ten days to learn the recall. 


I do this occasionally.  It lasts less than a minute.  That energy should be directed into the training.  Playing can be done afterwards. 

Earlier I wrote:

It wastes energy.  It means that the dog can't be worked at a high level of concentration as long because he's burned off some of that energy. 


You'll have much more success if you incorporate this into the training instead of making it something that comes before it and is separate from it.  I'd suggest that you read "Training in Drive." 


The challenge is issued when someone claims that their training is 100% reliable (or as modified especially for Emmy – 99%).  It's not a competition between me and anyone else. 


I'm not stupid enough to think that I have 100% reliability.  I only intend to show those people who make that claim (or one of 99% reliability) to be frauds and liars. 


I don't care how many people take me up on it.  The point is to show the frauds and liars up for what they are. 


I've proven that they're afraid to even accept the challenge. 


The test will be videotaped at least by me and by anyone else who is present and desires to do so.  If there's any cheating going on it will be plain for all to see.  That would completely discredit me everywhere and I'd be disgraced.  Worries of "cheating" are just a way to people to weasel out of supporting their claim of 100% (or, in this case, 99% reliability). 


You're right that I’m taking words "literally."  These are literal statements of how good someone thinks that their training is.  That's exactly how it should be taken. 


Of course it does.  If someone makes such a statement they should be able to back it up by demonstrating it.  That's why there are OB competitions for dogs.  So that people can test their training.  My challenge just tests one phase of it.  What good does it do a dog who's running towards a busy street if he fails to recall THIS TIME?  That's why we train, so that we can predict what our dogs will do in various situations that we find ourselves  in. 



Are you not understanding the meaning of the word "reliable?"  That's exactly what is meant.  It's predicting the future based on past performance and training.  One buys a quality TV, car, and cell phone based on how it will perform in the future.  It's called reliability.  It's not an absolute predictor but it's certainly an indication of how it should be. 


That's exactly what the challenge is designed to show.  That people's criteria for making such a statement, is flawed. 


I've defined the word "reliable" (in this context) as meaning that the dog obeys every command, on a single command, no matter what the distance the dog is from the handler (as long as he can hear the handler's voice or see a hand signal [if the dog has been trained with them]) and no matter what distractions are present.  If the person accepts this definition then it makes no difference what the dog is trained for. 


"Reliability" doesn't mean one thing for a pet and something else for a working dog.  Words have meanings, they shouldn't be tossed around as if they didn't. 

Earlier I wrote:

Of course not.  I've never made the claim that I have 100% reliability; and I'm not so stupid that I would. 


USE of the Ecollar guarantees 100% reliability because it's the only tools that allows the handler to give the dog a correction at a distance.  Training with it gives the same reliability as many other tools. 


For things that I consider to be "tricks."  Some examples: barking on command, shaking hands, rolling over, playing dead and giving kisses.  Generally it's for things that are "permissive."  Things that don't need a high degree of consistency. 


It's an obvious sign that her training isn't as good as she'd like us to believe. 


I agree. 


More than likely you're correct; her requirements for her pet aren't the same as for a working dog (although that's kind of a vague term) but 99% reliability is the same for a pet as 99% reliability is for a working dog.  That's not subject to interpretation. 


The challenge is nothing but a way of showing people who make absurd claims that their training gives high levels of reliability that their statements have meaning.  That what they say has consequences and that they're exaggerating at best and lying at worst.  If someone claims that their methods give 100% (or, in this case 99%) reliability, that's FANTASTIC.  I'd pay a good sum ($3,000 in this case) to learn from them and I'm sure that many others would as well.  OB competitors would beat a path to their door.  Sporting competitors of all kinds would be begging them for lessons.  They'd be giving seminars around the world!  Rescues could close because the number of dogs with problems would drop.  Dogs that now get abused because they don't obey their owners (who get frustrated and take it out on their dog) would not be abused. 

But the truth is that the claim of 100% or even 99% reliably is a myth at best, and a lie at worst.