# Water Spraying unwanted behaviours



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

I have recently had great success in stopping unwanted behaviour in my Jack Russell. I have filled a plastic spray bottle with water (like you use to spray plants) and turned the plastic nozzle at the top so that the water comes out in a straight line and shoots far. If you wet your dog with it just a tiny bit it should stop the unwanted behaviour instantly. After a while just the sight of the bottle will stop him and you dont even have to wet him. Quite easy but seems to work well. Hope this helps anyone out there at their wits end! Let me know if you use it how you get on.:thumbup:


----------



## maizie0_0 (May 4, 2010)

Lol we tried this with Elsie. Worked for a while then she worked out that if she turned around at just the right moment she could get the water straight into her mouth! Its a game to her now!


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I don`t use aversives with my dogs. I prefer to use positive methods.


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> I have recently had great success in stopping unwanted behaviour in my Jack Russell. I have filled a plastic spray bottle with water (like you use to spray plants) and turned the plastic nozzle at the top so that the water comes out in a straight line and shoots far. If you wet your dog with it just a tiny bit it should stop the unwanted behaviour instantly. After a while just the sight of the bottle will stop him and you dont even have to wet him. Quite easy but seems to work well. Hope this helps anyone out there at their wits end! Let me know if you use it how you get on.:thumbup:


I've heard that smacking their nose with a rolled up newspaper works well too, or a hundred different other punishments. Shock collars are another quick and easy solution.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference between punishing the dog with water or an electric shock, punishment is punishment, and there really is no need.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> I don`t use aversives with my dogs. I prefer to use positive methods.


:thumbup: :thumbup:



Jasper's Bloke said:


> I've heard that smacking their nose with a rolled up newspaper works well too, or a hundred different other punishments. Shock collars are another quick and easy solution.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see the difference between punishing the dog with water or an electric shock, punishment is punishment, and there really is no need.


Here Here

Sorry but if these are the methods you choose to use then fine, but you will find that the majority on this forum would rather use positive methods that take a bit of time, but have fun with their dog, rather than shocking the poor little sod. Quick fixes don't last.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I spray Roo with water...

from the sprinkler. He thinks its ace.


----------



## keirk (Aug 9, 2010)

My wife and I were in the vets with Jack having his 2nd injection. My wife mentioned that he will sometimes bark for attention when in his crate, the vets advice "Spray him with water when he does it". Great advice .... if I never wanted him to get into the crate again.... 

When my Jack has been really naughty I give him a bath


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Depends what result you call 'working'... Aversives come with fallout and I prefer to avoid that as its harder to fix then simple misbehaviours.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

It may 'stop' the behaviour - but it teaches the dog nothing. Positive methods take more effort and thinking about but are far more effective in the long term.:yesnod:


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

keirk said:


> My wife and I were in the vets with Jack having his 2nd injection. My wife mentioned that he will sometimes bark for attention when in his crate, the vets advice "Spray him with water when he does it". Great advice .... if I never wanted him to get into the crate again....
> 
> When my Jack has been really naughty I give him a bath


Just goes to show how much vets know about dog behaviour, they are just as knowledgeable about nutrition. Great example of the consequences of aversive training.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

spraying with water is just like smacking IMO.. never smacked clover, never sprayed her. Just reinforced her good behaviour and ignored the not so good


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

Water is not like a smack, it doesn't hurt them it's more of a distraction. With a Jack Russell, I'm afraid if you just ignore bad behaviour, it just continues as they are very strong-willed little things, hence the saying 'a big dog in a small body'. Our little one has had many problems, ie. agression with other dogs, agression with people, biting members of our family. We are slowly working through them all and if a little water gets him to the right place, I'm sure he won't mind. He knows we love him.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

You do need to let your dog know when its behaviour is unwanted though. It doesn't understand english except a few training words. My dog is very reactive to movements and noises, and has nervous aggression, so we really do need to control him where it's not wanted, ie. scaring the neighbour half to death the other side of the fence, people entering our house who we don't want bitten, etc. Its easy to say don't use a bit of water but he does get hundreds of treats for all his other good behaviours. We have never had to do anything like this before, but we have an extreme case here.


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> Water is not like a smack, it doesn't hurt them it's more of a distraction. With a Jack Russell, I'm afraid if you just ignore bad behaviour, it just continues as they are very strong-willed little things, hence the saying 'a big dog in a small body'. Our little one has had many problems, ie. agression with other dogs, agression with people, biting members of our family. We are slowly working through them all and if a little water gets him to the right place, I'm sure he won't mind. He knows we love him.


I agree with you Foxyloxy! Water spraying for me interupted my pups bad behaviour, enough so I could distract him. He is a very strong willed 14 month Irish Setter, who's behaviour now is so much better. And if I ignored all bad behaviour I would have no house/garden left and a 5 yr old son humped to death!
I do also believe in positive reinforcement and not to smack dogs but I do think like children they need correcting too, otherwise how do they know what they are doing is wrong? We can't reason with them as they are dogs and not human.
I do think that sometimes when posting on here you get shot down in flames from the PC Police and it all gets way out of perspective. After all a squirt of low pressure water on a dog is not hitting them.
I think also what works for some dogs doesnt always work for others and we have to find the best method of teaching with a bit of trial an error.
Now i will get off my high horse:thumbup:


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

I agreed with that, I use it for meeting dogs training, truck training, recall training, etc, but when a Jack Russell is onto something, a tray of frankfurters won't distract him so the water squirt does interupt him, we have tried every other ordinary way, ie. stop, leave, no, treats, but no joy. He also has nervous agression and likes to bite any strangers who come in. So it's either a little squirt or back to the kennels. He is rescue and we are experienced owners and even we nearly had to give him back but we all love him too much. We are prepared to keep working with him.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

What a relief to have someone on my side. I was beginning to think I might be reported to the rspca! He is such a lovely little character and a rescue with nervous aggression problems. Had him only six months now and he has come such a long way in his behaviour. Couldn't bear to have to give him back so we are trying the water with good results. Thanks for your support. Bobby says woof woof!


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

You are of course free to train you dog in the manner you wish, but your origional post you were suggesting the use to other, and others have stated why they will not be following your advice.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> What a relief to have someone on my side. I was beginning to think I might be reported to the rspca! He is such a lovely little character and a rescue with nervous aggression problems. Had him only six months now and he has come such a long way in his behaviour. Couldn't bear to have to give him back so we are trying the water with good results. Thanks for your support. Bobby says woof woof!


Do you not think that squirting water at a nervous aggressive dog will reinforce the nervousness?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Although I prefer non-aversive methods, I've used a water spray and a remote spray (unscented) collar to stop Ziggy running off and invading football games - and that was after 4 years of trying positive methods with no success.

Spraying a dog with water is momentarily unpleasant for it, but works well as a distraction. Sometimes you need instantly to stop a dog doing something that's dangerous for it or socially unacceptable. What are you supposed to do if your dog starts jumping on adders? Start clicker training?


----------



## Daggre (May 2, 2010)

I'm still unsure about these mehtods, I don't agree with smacking as that is done to let out frustration and is more for your benefit then anything else, and I definately believe in positive reinforcement.

But I'd like to know how you get the dogs attention when it has/is doing what it most wants to do??


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Daggre said:


> I'm still unsure about these mehtods, I don't agree with smacking as that is done to let out frustration and is more for your benefit then anything else, and I definately believe in positive reinforcement.
> 
> But I'd like to know how you get the dogs attention when it has/is doing what it most wants to do??


The idea of positive training is you prevent the dog from practising the undesired behaviour. eg, jumping on visitors, crate or house line to be used. Not recalling use a long line.

Then you are able to address the problem behaviours in a manageable way.

Thats my take on it anyway.


----------



## Dally Banjo (Oct 22, 2009)

Daggre said:


> But I'd like to know how you get the dogs attention when it has/is doing what it most wants to do??


I have a small plastic container with some of there food in so just shake it & if that dose'nt work make stupid noises  Holly is a real bandit for left over food at the beach but I would never get close enough to squirt her with anything  9 times out of 10 she will leave/stop doing things when told but occasionally ARG!


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

sue&harvey said:


> The idea of positive training is you prevent the dog from practising the undesired behaviour. eg, jumping on visitors, crate or house line to be used. Not recalling use a long line.
> 
> Then you are able to address the problem behaviours in a manageable way.
> 
> Thats my take on it anyway.


Totally agree with you. But some people prefer a quick fix that takes little effort on their part. It appears to 'work' even though they have to keep repeating the correction thus proving the dog has not learned anything in the long run...................

But........who are we and what do we know eh?


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

Hi, I don't understand what you mean. Can you put it another way? Thanks.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Foxyloxy said:


> Hi, I don't understand what you mean. Can you put it another way? Thanks.


You prevent the behaviour. If your dog is barking like a maniac when someone comes to the door, you stop the dog going to the door.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

OK, that is understood, but my dog is an extreme case, (hence, why in rescue kennel) the owners could not manage him. He suffers with nervous aggression, ie, anyone even entering the house will get bitten if he is not muzzled. He does not tolerate strangers in the house even if he has met them many times. If the water prevents this, then no-one is being injured? Although I havn't been brave enough to try it out in this situation yet, but just in the garden.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Good Quick fix : Something like my usage of an anti-pull harness with foster pup. It makes pulling ineffective, improves safety, reduces stress level to handler & dog, and improves dog comfort who liked it very much after first usage. However I still have the problem that the dog is walking out in front of me, and effectively is in it's own world there, rather than with me, and so I still need to train LLW / heeling to really solve the problem anyway.

Bad fix : Aversive techniques might seem to work quickly but can have unintended consequences, like damaging your trust relationship with your dog, who is now ambivalent about you, the unreliably benevelont calm leader.

Or maybe making a nervous dog even more nervous rather than calmer.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Foxyloxy said:


> OK, that is understood, but my dog is an extreme case, (hence, why in rescue kennel) the owners could not manage him. He suffers with nervous aggression, ie, anyone even entering the house will get bitten if he is not muzzled. He does not tolerate strangers in the house even if he has met them many times. If the water prevents this, then no-one is being injured? Although I havn't been brave enough to try it out in this situation yet, but just in the garden.


Than you should get your vet to refer you to a good behaviourist to work with. If it is really that bad, then using aversive techniques really could escelate the situation!


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> Hi, I don't understand what you mean. Can you put it another way? Thanks.


Not sure if you mean me but, a dog with nervous aggression is aggressive because it is expecting something unpleasent to happen in a certain situation. You then squirt it with water and confirm it. Are you rehabing the dog or just teaching it to hide the symptoms of the problem? If the latter then it may well return to bite either you or someone else in the ass.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

sue&harvey said:


> Than you should get your vet to refer you to a good behaviourist to work with. If it is really that bad, then using aversive techniques really could escelate the situation!


Yes! And I also wondered how the dog got so nervous in the first place.

This is why the behavourists on this forum, get so vehement about certain TV show which features aversive techniques, and frequent forceful handling of dogs.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

My dog knows by now what I want as good behaviour. ie. he won't even eat his food unless I ask him to show me something good ie. a trick. I have to discourage his bad behaviour when I can if I am to keep this dog. When I didn't know him at first I got caught out and had several bitten people. But I know him now and what triggers certain behaviours in him. Even if I ask a behaviourist, it will entail something unpleasant, as I have seen them on tv. So I don't agree with your comment that using this method will have adverse affects. It is working slowly but surely, he will get the message eventually that if he doesn't want the water, he doesn't show me the bad behaviour.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

Because he was never socialised as a puppy of course. Even I can work that one out.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

<looks round at other experienced dog owners and trainers.>

Can anyone tell me why we bother? We obviously don't know what we are talking about...

<politely bows out of thread>


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> Even if I ask a behaviourist, it will entail something unpleasant, as I have seen them on tv.


Didn't you also see on the tv show where it says "do not attempt these techniques yourself without consulting a profesional"


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

I wish I knew why he was like this, but alas, don't know the history behind him ending up in kennels. All we were told was he snapped at the children and was handed in. But is this the real reason, I will never know.


----------



## Foxyloxy (Jul 13, 2010)

ok, i will see about hiring a professional. Has anyone hired one before? I would be interested to know what to expect. Thanks.


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> I have recently had great success in stopping unwanted behaviour in my Jack Russell. I have filled a plastic spray bottle with water (like you use to spray plants) and turned the plastic nozzle at the top so that the water comes out in a straight line and shoots far. If you wet your dog with it just a tiny bit it should stop the unwanted behaviour instantly. After a while just the sight of the bottle will stop him and you dont even have to wet him. Quite easy but seems to work well. Hope this helps anyone out there at their wits end! Let me know if you use it how you get on.:thumbup:





Foxyloxy said:


> OK, that is understood, but my dog is an extreme case, (hence, why in rescue kennel) the owners could not manage him. He suffers with nervous aggression, ie, anyone even entering the house will get bitten if he is not muzzled. He does not tolerate strangers in the house even if he has met them many times. If the water prevents this, then no-one is being injured? Although I havn't been brave enough to try it out in this situation yet, but just in the garden.


Sometimes extreme cases do need extreme action, but to be fair, I don't think your original post made this clear and it came across as general advice for behaviour modification, hence the reaction you have received.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Good Quick fix : Something like my usage of an anti-pull harness with foster pup. It makes pulling ineffective, improves safety, reduces stress level to handler & dog, and improves dog comfort who liked it very much after first usage. However I still have the problem that the dog is walking out in front of me, and effectively is in it's own world there, rather than with me, and so I still need to train LLW / heeling to really solve the problem anyway.


While spraying with water is in no way, shape or form a fix (ie it teaches the dog nothing), Rob does make an excellent point, you are punishing the symptoms of the behaviour rather than the cause of it, so the problem will remain and you have effectively achieved nothing. Have you considered why your dog is nervous-aggressive?



hawksport said:


> Not sure if you mean me but, a dog with nervous aggression is aggressive because it is expecting something unpleasent to happen in a certain situation. You then squirt it with water and confirm it. Are you rehabing the dog or just teaching it to hide the symptoms of the problem? If the latter then it may well return to bite either you or someone else in the ass.


Even if extreme behaviour does require extreme action, the type of that action remains a matter of personal choice, but if you think about it logically as Hawksport has done here, treating aggression with more aggression (attacking with water for example) is probably not the most constructive solution.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Foxyloxy said:


> My dog knows by now what I want as good behaviour.
> 
> No he doesn`t . He really doesn`t. He is presenting behaviour to appease you because he`s hungry.
> 
> ...


No he won`t. He`ll either end up afraid of you or aggressive.


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> My dog knows by now what I want as good behaviour. ie. he won't even eat his food unless I ask him to show me something good ie. a trick.


Dogs do not generalise, waiting for release to eat his food has absolutely nothing to do with any other behaviour. He may sit at the back door when he wants to be let out but that doesn't mean he will sit on the other side to be let back in. One behaviour does not automatically provide another.



Foxyloxy said:


> I have to discourage his bad behaviour when I can if I am to keep this dog. When I didn't know him at first I got caught out and had several bitten people. But I know him now and what triggers certain behaviours in him.


Yes you do have to discourage this behaviour and if you can see the triggers then you have a perfect opportunity to replace the resulting behaviour with something else. It is far easier to replace a behaviour than to eradicate one. My dog used to run up and down the hall like a whirling dervish when the doorbell went, how do you go about stopping him doing that? Simple, you don't, I just taught him that the doorbell was a cue to go into his crate.



Foxyloxy said:


> Even if I ask a behaviourist, it will entail something unpleasant, as I have seen them on tv. So I don't agree with your comment that using this method will have adverse affects. It is working slowly but surely, he will get the message eventually that if he doesn't want the water, he doesn't show me the bad behaviour.


Your experience of 'TV behaviourists' is, I am afraid to say, very narrow minded, it's TV and not real life and you seldom get to see the long term results of such treatments. A suitably qualified behaviourist should take the time to identify the root cause of the problem and then tailor the treatment to suit, they should also see the treatment through until it is fully proofed.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

Foxyloxy said:


> My dog knows by now what I want as good behaviour. ie. he won't even eat his food unless I ask him to show me something good ie. a trick. I have to discourage his bad behaviour when I can if I am to keep this dog. When I didn't know him at first I got caught out and had several bitten people. But I know him now and what triggers certain behaviours in him. *Even if I ask a behaviourist, it will entail something unpleasant, as I have seen them on tv. *So I don't agree with your comment that using this method will have adverse affects. It is working slowly but surely, he will get the message eventually that if he doesn't want the water, he doesn't show me the bad behaviour.


Please note I said a GOOD Behaviourist!!!!

It does have adverse effects! There are a few people that have replied to your thread that ARE behaviourists themselves, don't you think they know about canine psycology?

You are merely suppressing the behaviour.

Another example for you. My dog suffered from Separation Anxiety. If I had stuck a shock collar on him so every time he made a noise he got a shock, yes the Barking would cease, (the behaviour *I* want but he wouldn't learn how to be comfortable being alone would he?

As it was I put in some good hard work, consistancy and desensitized him to the triggers. Through Crate training, desensitization and distraction he can now be left with out him getting into a Panic!

A big difference between the 2 don't you think!!!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Foxyloxy said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> ...my dog is an extreme case, (hence, why in rescue kennel) the owners could not manage him.
> He suffers with nervous aggression, ie, anyone even entering the house will get bitten if he is not muzzled.
> ...


* Ur dog is anxious and fearful - nervous, paranoid, call it what U will.
* he is a TERRIERRRIST - they are by definition, a reactive GROUP of breeds - 
they bark with little provocation, and bite with not much more; they alert + startle easily; 
he is not unique, worse than any other JRT, etc; he is *scared*.

* spraying him with water when *visitors* arrive *associates* visitors = Bad Things - 
*is that what U want?* think about it. 
he is already fearful and defensive about visitors invading his home - HOW will making him more-anxious, improve this? :huh:



> * if U do not want him to BITE visitors:
> - tether him away from the door, on an 18-inch long bike-cable clipped to an eye-bolt screwed into the baseboard
> Tethered to Success
> 
> ...


*B-Mod* to improve his feeling about visitors *entails associating good things with visitors* - 
not startling, scaring, worrying, or upsetting the dog.

using aversives and PAIRING them with the arrival or presence of visitors makes things ** worse ** - not better. 
- terry


----------



## Daggre (May 2, 2010)

Ah this cleared it up for me, I was a CM follower before I came to this forum and had been struggling to understand how to interrupt, but I think i get it, so basically, you don't allow the behaviour in the first place and you offer an alternative from the start??

But I don't understand how you stop barking in the garden for instance, say the dog is barking already and you would like to stop the behaviour and replace it, how do you go about stopping it first? Assuming aksing the dog to sit or something was having absolutely no effect...


Sorry i'm just trying to understand really.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Daggre said:


> But I don't understand how you stop barking in the garden for instance, say the dog is barking already and you would like to stop the behaviour and replace it, how do you go about stopping it first?


Firstly you would try to identify why the dog is barking in the first place. 
Is it territorial? frustration? boredom? attention seeking?
"Barking - The Sound of a Language" by Turid Rugaas is a very helpful, easy to read, little book to help with this.

But whatever the cause (except perhaps in attention-seeking) you would firstly demand that your dog comes in *immediately* it starts to bark too much. Rewarded, of course, for complying. If he won't, then you need perhaps to work on your recall or work on reliably getting your dog's immediate attention (with "Watch Me" commands).

It would be counter-productive to use an aversive (like a water spray) because believe me, I've been there, tried it in desperation, and been left to pick up the pieces - I now have a dog that is petrified of hosepipes and water bottles and have had to spend the last two years persuading him that it means GOOD things to come in when I ask him to.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Daggre said:


> ...I don't understand how you stop barking in the garden for instance,
> say the dog is barking already and you would like to stop the behaviour and replace it,
> how do you go about stopping it first?
> Assuming asking the dog to sit or something [had] absolutely no effect...


* leave a drag on the dog; they bark? 
pick-up the drag, pop the dog indoors, pinch the drag in the door, and walk off; 
leave the dog there for 30-secs, let the dog back out... they bark? _*lather, rinse, repeat...*_ ad infinitum.

that SHORT, crisply-delivered interruption lets the dog take a breath, THINK about consequences, + make the link: 
*"i bark? = i am stuck by the door and bored..." 
the dog MUST be allowed to have an opportunity to re-offend; a 20-min time-out leaves the dog NOT knowing 
what s/he did, to trigger the consequence; it needs to be immediate, and *short*.* 
if bark = time-out, 20 times in 20-mins, the dog WILL figure it out. 
allowing 1 to 3 barks to alert U that someone is arriving, is fine; it's nuisance-barking for more than a minute 
that is the problem.

that's only one; there are dozens of contingent interruptors that work. 
- terry


----------



## Daggre (May 2, 2010)

Thank you very much 

Star doesn't bark herself I just needed an example 

BUT she has started just barking randomly in/out the house. Obviously it isn't randomly but there seem to be a number of triggers, I believe one of them is people walking on the driveway/past the house. We don't wnat her barking at all really, and before I was shhhing her which stopped her but since reading this thread I have been asking her to sit then treating her.

I am hoping she will see the sit as an alternate to barking? My Dad rekons it'll teach her that she gets treats for barking but then he isn't really interested in this stuff and I have done most of Star's training. I have also managed to convine him not to hit/punish her now


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Daggre said:


> Star... has started... barking randomly in/out the house. ...there seem to be a number of triggers,
> I believe one... is people walking on the drive... past the house. We don't want her barking at all really...
> I was [shushing] her which stopped her [barks] but since reading this thread I [ask] her to sit then [treat] her.


teach her to "SPEAK" first, and then teach _"hush..." 
crouch, eyes-on-eyes, with a finger before Ur lips, and whisper._


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm going to put things in really really simple terms.

Using the example of a dog barking at other people in the street.

Now the reasons the dog barks are unknown. It could be lack of socialisation, it could be past trauma, it could be a learned behaviour... get the idea? we just dont know. What we do know, is that its worse in any "new" environment and with strangers, and its quite clear from the dogs body language that he is being defensive and fearful. These people terrify him and so flight or fight kicks in, and being on a lead he can only fight.

So

1 - dog sees a stranger approaching, body language changes, tail goes down, eyes are fixed on the person, dog moves around lead behind owner at its full extention. Dog knows this encounter is going to be unpleasant and so prepares to run.
2 - Stranger (the threat!) gets closer and pays no attention to the dogs I'm afraid of you signals, so dogs body language changes again. Ears go up, lips curl, low (possibly inaudible) growl and he is now moving infront of the owner. He cant get away and this threat is still coming, its time to fight.
3 - stranger walks past, dog crouches and lunges, snapping snarling barking and pulling hard on the lead
4 - Owner sprays water in dogs face... OMG what just happened?!? oh yes! something unpleasant just like i expected! I was right to fight, but... wait... my owner doesnt like my response, yet everytime that stranger comes past something unpleasant happens. 
5 - 2 options here. This could happen at the next encounter or the 50th but i am certain it will happen... 
a) dog sees that its the owner who does the unpleasant thing, dog bites owner... owner has dog put down/rehomed
b)dog never knows where the unpleasantness is coming, owner is distracted and dog manages to bite stranger. Stranger takes owner to court and dog is destroyed.




Now... can you see why using unpleasant (aversive) training techniques do not work?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Jasper's Bloke said:


> While spraying with water is in no way, shape or form a fix (ie it teaches the dog nothing), Rob does make an excellent point, you are punishing the symptoms of the behaviour rather than the cause of it, so the problem will remain and you have effectively achieved nothing. Have you considered why your dog is nervous-aggressive?


Yes, the discussion seemed to have moved on to the general "quick fixes", which indeed do seem to punish the symptoms, rather than solve the real root of the problem.

I really like the clarity of your point, a gentle water spray might act as an interrupter rather than be truly aversive (my pup actually tries to play with a water jet and attack it, and there's plenty of film around of dogs being playful with hoses etc).

But even used in the interruptor fashion, you then need to follow through, are you punishing, or are you going to positively reinforce a desirable alternative.

The spray idea, seems to be more like the regularly repeated jerks on lead of those "checking the dog", which become so habitual they appear to become natural to both handler.

As you point out, the dog learns nothing without a positive follow through.


----------



## Daggre (May 2, 2010)

Star knows 'speak' problem is, she just barks once. And she does be quiet when I shh her and I obivously praise her, but the problem is it's just a few short barks I just don't wnat it to escalate. i'll continue with asking her to sit instead and do the:


> crouch, eyes-on-eyes, with a finger before Ur lips, and whisper.


----------



## doglover1127 (Jan 8, 2009)

I think this article is right on target. A lot of good points and advice on the subject. I have found that when doing my research, sites like this offer the best unbiased opinions and are very good in helping me make a decision.


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

doglover1127 said:


> I think this article is right on target. A lot of good points and advice on the subject. I have found that when doing my research, sites like this offer the best unbiased opinions and are very good in helping me make a decision.


So why display a signature that links directly to the sale of electronic fences, shock collars and other instruments of torture?

Just wondering.......................


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Jasper's Bloke said:


> So why display a signature that links directly to the sale of electronic fences, shock collars and other instruments of torture?
> 
> Just wondering.......................


Plan B ............


----------



## staflove (Sep 4, 2008)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> I don`t use aversives with my dogs. I prefer to use positive methods.


I agree with you, but sometimes disc and water sprays are needed but to be advice by a behaviourist not to just do it yourself or you can cause more harm than good and espeacialy if your dog is fearfull


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Only read half of this thread but theres so much generalisation instead of thinking about dogs and whatever problems they may have as individuals, therefore with individual solutions to their problem. I mean not every dog will see being sprayed with water as a punishment and not every dog can be fixed with treats and lots of praise. I personally would say that the main aim is to work with a dog through their problems in the safest, most comfortable and most effective way possible - which would differ for every dog. xx


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I am afraid, FoxyLady, that you have been watching the wrong tv programme! Try watching Its me or the Dog instead. victoria Stillwell is never going to use anything unpleasant; it is not the right way to train. You need someone on the APBC list or something similar. Don't just fish someone out of the yellow pages with no qualifications; they are probably also following the same tv programme.

Spraying with water is a well known method of stopping bad behaviour and as you say, it doesn't hurt the dog physically, but what about mentally? Emotionally? Dogs are usually aggressive because they are scared and you are making him more scared. I know you haven't realised it, but that is what is happening if he doesn't like water.

I did, in fact, try it with Ferdie once because he was humping everything and everybody that moved. Of course, being a newfie, he thought it was a great game, but that is the difference. It distracted him from what he shouldn't be doing and brought his attention round to something he likes - water! I never sprayed him in the face, though, only on his head.


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Only read half of this thread but theres so much generalisation instead of thinking about dogs and whatever problems they may have as individuals, therefore with individual solutions to their problem. I mean not every dog will see being sprayed with water as a punishment and not every dog can be fixed with treats and lots of praise. I personally would say that the main aim is to work with a dog through their problems in the safest, most comfortable and most effective way possible - which would differ for every dog. xx


Totally agree! I would get no where with my irish setter if it was just praise and treats etc as he is very wilful, stubborn and needs a firm but fair approach.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

doglover1127 said:


> I think this article is right on target. A lot of good points and advice on the subject.
> I have found that when doing my research, sites like this offer the best unbiased opinions and are very good
> in helping me make a decision.


U sure have a weird idea of what's NOT aversive - 
 given the sig-links to SHOCK-fences, SHOCK-collars and ANTI-Bark collars? 
are U a sales-rep for Radio-Fence? :huh: if so, why would U sell things which U [supposedly] would not use?

i think U are just choosing a popular opinion, or perhaps a PC-one, vs actually supporting non-aversive training. 
:blink: of course, this could be merely an impression...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> ...not every dog will see being sprayed with water as a punishment
> and not every dog can be fixed with treats and lots of praise.


hey, fuzz! :--) 
treats + praise are not non-contingent - the dog has to DO SOMETHING we desire, and thus earn the treats 
and / or the praise - Right? how is rewarding desired behaviors, a bad thing? 
how can rewarding desired behaviors, fail to help a dog with problem behaviors? 
after all, we would not reward the problem-behaviors...  


Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I personally would say that the main aim is to work with a dog through their problems
> in the safest, most comfortable and most effective way possible - which would differ for every dog. xx


be sure + let me know when U find a dog who ** enjoys ** electric-shock :lol: 
or who finds being *'corrected'* with a choke-chain/slip-chain or prong/pinch collar, *rewarding*.

i think i can safely say, i will have a very, very, very, very long wait.
i think it is safe to say, while dogs -Likes- may vary, their -Dislikes- are pretty universal.


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

I completely agree with you Terry lol . Hence why i said comfortable and stuff lol, but i've met far too many trainers who have said treats and praise will always work and too many idiots who have said shock the dog, hit the dog or pin the dog . I think the more the dog and trainer are clearly at ease with the training methods the better x


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I don`t use violence when teaching children so don`t see why I should need it with my dogs. If you punish a dog for growling he will skip that growl and go on to bite. If you punish a dog for showing fear he will be aggressive. Sprays, rattles, choke chains, electric shocks, whips, kicks, etc etc all work on the pronciple of punishment. If you need to punish you haven`t trained the dog properly.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Foxyloxy said:


> I agreed with that, I use it for meeting dogs training, truck training, recall training, etc, but when a Jack Russell is onto something, a tray of frankfurters won't distract him so the water squirt does interupt him, we have tried every other ordinary way, ie. stop, leave, no, treats, but no joy. He also has nervous agression and likes to bite any strangers who come in. So it's either a little squirt or back to the kennels. He is rescue and we are experienced owners and even we nearly had to give him back but we all love him too much. We are prepared to keep working with him.


And how is getting squirted with water going to make him feel less nervous, I wonder?

Far better to treat the CAUSE of behaviour than the symptom. Make him less nervous of strangers and he won't feel the need to bite. Squirt him every time and you may well stop the symptom, but he'll still be nervous and still want to bite... and one day you won't be quick enough with the squirter, or you won't have it with you. Or it will be empty.

Anyway, basically WHEN you have additional problems caused by squirting your dog with water every five minutes, seek the advice of a positive trainer.


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> I don`t use violence when teaching children so don`t see why I should need it with my dogs. If you punish a dog for growling he will skip that growl and go on to bite. If you punish a dog for showing fear he will be aggressive. Sprays, rattles, choke chains, electric shocks, whips, kicks, etc etc all work on the pronciple of punishment. If you need to punish you haven`t trained the dog properly.


Oh come on it is not quite as clear cut as that! I too dont use violence with children, animals and humans either but i do use punishment on my children when neccessary (non violent of course).
The water spray and training discs interupt unwanted behaviour without man handling the dog which i think is worse.

I do agree that maybe it is not the best thing to use on a nervous dog and I would certainly never use chokes, electric shocks whips etc. And saying that if you need to use punishment means you having trained your dog properly then yes I agree to an extent. But the whole point is that we are striving to train our dogs properly when having to use discs and sprays etc. I think again generalisations are being made. Just my view on this debate and nothing personal intended


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> I mean not every dog will see being sprayed with water as a punishment


As several people have already said, you are quite right, however, in the context of the original post the water spray was being used as a punishment for undesired behaviour and therefore an aversive.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Setter said:


> Totally agree! I would get no where with my irish setter if it was just praise and treats etc as he is very wilful, stubborn and needs a firm but fair approach.


Well my pup can be wilful and stubborn, but his behaviour still gets modified by positive reinforcement and negative punishment (withdrawing attention for example). He learns I am one persistent stubborn guy, and am willing to wait him out, so it's more fun to be lead. If that's "firm but fair" then I'm with you, if it involves dramatic displays intended to intimidate I disagree.

Now where I do bend, is when the pup is say frightened and really unable to do what he's meant to, same over excitement. Yet I've seen ppl try to control over excited dogs by man handling them, which just reinforces the playful rough housing behaviour that they are objecting to, and the dog is mystified by the ensuing sin bin type punishment, and emergers no calmer than when it went in, as soon as it gets back to the owner.

Surely if a dog is wilful and stubborn, then there's less point in trying to force it, and much more in making it associate desirable behaviours with happy outcomes, and undesirable ones with boring outcomes, so it voluntarily does what you want? Similarly capturing behaviours when they occur natural. Isn't working with the grain better, than against it?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Setter said:


> Oh come on it is not quite as clear cut as that! I too dont use violence with children, animals and humans either but i do use punishment on my children when neccessary (non violent of course).


Punishment in that sense is a human concept, that dogs do not understand. Humans look back into the past and future and can associate a past deed with justice, and also be aware of a future possibility of punishment, however it is well known that criminals are not detered by punishment but more by high risk of being caught.

A Punisher used correctly reduces repetition of the undesirable behaviour, but needs to be clearly associated with that. Hence advise to yelp, and cease play when nipped by a puppy when bitten. The yelp makes it clear that hurt, and ceasing play briefly is the punishment.

If you go into a sulk for 20 minutes, after giving the pup a lecture, it is just going to be confused and find you unstable.


----------



## ixmahr42 (Sep 4, 2010)

I had great success with this in the past. My Beagle hated it. Anytime he started barking and barking I would spray him and he'd stop. It can work with a lot of bad behaviors.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

ixmahr42 said:


> I had great success with this in the past. My Beagle hated it. Anytime he started barking and barking I would spray him and he'd stop. It can work with a lot of bad behaviors.


It may "work" but if I slapped you every time you spoke, you would soon not speak!

It is exactly the same


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

I've used a water pistol on my dog in ONE situation only.

I visit my friend and she'd got bunnies, who she kept in a large run. My dog used to bark HYSTERICALLY at them. I hid in the downstairs loo and squirted her when she went off on one. It worked as an interruptor in that she would still lie and look at them, but she stopped barking at them.

Had they been MY bunnies, I would have used other methods, but since we visit my friend so rarely I didn't really mind my dog showing interest in the bunnies; I just wanted her to stop barking her head off.

I'm not against aversives full stop, especially "mild" ones like being sprinkled with water. Life is full of them. But for me the issue is that *I don't want my dog to associate me with unpleasant things.* If I couldn't have done it without her knowing it was me I wouldn't have done it at all.


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Punishment in that sense is a human concept, that dogs do not understand. Humans look back into the past and future and can associate a past deed with justice, and also be aware of a future possibility of punishment, however it is well known that criminals are not detered by punishment but more by high risk of being caught.
> 
> A Punisher used correctly reduces repetition of the undesirable behaviour, but needs to be clearly associated with that. Hence advise to yelp, and cease play when nipped by a puppy when bitten. The yelp makes it clear that hurt, and ceasing play briefly is the punishment.
> 
> If you go into a sulk for 20 minutes, after giving the pup a lecture, it is just going to be confused and find you unstable.


yes i agree that if any punishment has to be used it has to be instant and consistent so the dog associates it as a punishment/consequence. Like i agree there is no point coming home and scolding a dog because he has chewed something in your absence.


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> I've used a water pistol on my dog in ONE situation only.
> 
> I visit my friend and she'd got bunnies, who she kept in a large run. My dog used to bark HYSTERICALLY at them. I hid in the downstairs loo and squirted her when she went off on one. It worked as an interruptor in that she would still lie and look at them, but she stopped barking at them.
> 
> ...


When i used a water pistol it was whilst I was hiding as I too wanted Reuben not to know it was me. hasten to add I dont use it now but did do and it was useful in certain circumstances.


----------



## ixmahr42 (Sep 4, 2010)

sue&harvey said:


> It may "work" but if I slapped you every time you spoke, you would soon not speak!
> 
> It is exactly the same


How is spraying very small amounts of water the same as slapping a dog?  I feel I'm not hurting the dog in any way. I don't do this anymore, I only did it occasionally when Jerry was a puppy (he's 12 now.) However, I'd like to know if this is considered abuse. I didn't start using this forums long ago, and the idea is to educate myself.

BTW, is that a Beagle in your signature. I have a Beagle also, and my cat looks exactly the same as yours as well!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

U said: 


ixmahr42 said:


> *bold + underline added - *
> 
> I had great success with this in the past. *My Beagle hated it.* Anytime he [barked repeatedly,]
> I would spray him and he'd stop. *It can work with a lot of bad behaviors.*


ixxy, may i presume this is [one of] the same Beagle who LIVE outside, 24/7?

along with the 8-MO Husky whose nuisance-barking U complain of, on another thread? 
Pet Forums Community - View Single Post - Excessive Barking 
setting up a dog to fail, then blaming the dog, is not 'training' -- it's unfair and also, poor management.

Q - 
how long [weeks? months?] or how many times did U spray the dog, before the barking-chains stopped? 
if it was more than a few days, it was not 'training' - it was *nagging.* 
effective punishers *stop!* the behavior instantly, + need only 2 to 4 repetitions to quash it permanently.

i would lay ca$h that U spent weeks or months, spraying the dog - who is trapped in an inescapable 
situation which *makes him react - * which makes the despised spraying a form of torture... 
imagine weeks on end, of something that U hate intensely, in Ur bedroom; unable to escape, 
U must be there 24/7, and the stimulus is something very disturbing... how about loose snakes? 
or fingernails screeching on a slate-blackboard, happening anytime - 2 in the afternoon, or 3 in the morning, 
jarring U from a sound-sleep in the dark?

after a month of that, *how would U feel?* would U ever want to enter that room again? 


sue&harvey said:


> [spray-shots] may "work" but if I slapped you every time you spoke, you would soon not speak!
> It is exactly the same





ixmahr42 said:


> How is spraying very small amounts of water the same as slapping a dog?
> That is nonsense, I'm not hurting the dog in any way.


it's not *nonsense - * U noted that the Beagle hated it; *if i choose something as punishment that i know 
U hate or fear, like spiders or being alone in a dark-room, i am being excessively cruel. * 
punishers + aversives must be sized to the sin, and using something truly bothersome *for a behavior 
that You caused - like the Beagle living in the yard, barking - * is IMO unfair + very nasty...

Beagles are notoriously vocal, if U wanted a QUIET dog U should have chosen another breed.  
parking the dog in the yard as a living alarm-sensor makes barking inevitable; _then U punish the dog?! _ 
if i were Ur spouse, the rolled-newspaper would be applied to a human derriere :lol: U created the problem; 
the dog had no choice in the matter. *if i soak the newly-seeded yard, send my child outside to play, 
then spank the child for getting the freshly-waxed kitchen-floor muddy :eek6: , 
IMO i would be a sadist: i made it happen, and i spanked the innocent victim.*

there are many ways to teach or get quiet in place of barking; bringing the dog indoors is the easiest of all. 

JMO + IME of over 25-years; U are perfectly free to do as U wish, but blaming dogs for barking 
when they live in the yard, or spend hours unsupervised in the yard, punishes the wrong party - 
the responsible party is the adult _**** sapiens_ who stuck the dog in the isolating yard, 
open to heat, cold, insects, passersby, noises, movement, and other uncontrollable, inescapable stim.

cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

OK folks... I just have to make a "Kiss" sound, and it interrupts the dog.
A certain other thing that sometimes accidentally happens seems to make him come here. Isn't that better than lying in wait sniping at your dog with water pistols?

Surely if you spent the time usefully engaging with the dog, they'd not be bored in the first place and behave more constructively.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

RobD-BCactive said:


> OK folks... I just have to make a "Kiss" sound, and it interrupts the dog.
> A certain other thing that sometimes accidentally happens seems to make him come here. Isn't that better than lying in wait sniping at your dog with water pistols?
> 
> Surely if you spent the time usefully engaging with the dog, they'd not be bored in the first place and behave more constructively.


Is your "sniper" comment aimed at me? 

I completely agree with you, as it happens. Which is why, as I said, if a)they'd been MY bunnies and b) I couldn't have done it without her knowing it was me, I'd have dealt with it completely differently.

My dog is certainly not bored - she's very well exercised and we're competing at obedience; she gets plenty of training in that department. Plus I love teaching her tricks. I spend loads of time with her, either training or walking. She is not bored. She just likes shouting at bunnies (they didn't help at all, sitting as they do right next to the fence and sniffing at her while she yelled in their faces).

I fully admit I used a quick fix, in a very specific situation. As far as she was concerned, shouting at the bunnies made it start raining. So she stopped shouting at bunnies and contented her self with just staring. Eventually, she got bored and resumed playing with her boyf.


----------



## ixmahr42 (Sep 4, 2010)

Wow, leashedforlife, you speak as if you knew me and you don't. You think because you read a couple of messages I posted you know me. I never tortured my dog, I sprayed him a few times to stop him from biting on furniture or something like that (I said barking, beceause I actually didn't even remember what the behavior was since that was 12 years ago, and I only did it a few times) If you want to bet money then you will lose, because I didn't spend weeks or months doing that. And FYI my dogs do not live outside 24/7, they SLEEP outside in the terrace and backyard which is probably bigger than your whole house. The whole day they are inside except for a few hours a day when they play in the backyard and go for their walks. You say keeping a Beagel outside is "unfair and very nasty"? FYI Beagles are hounds used for hunting and are in their element in the outdoors. IMO kepping your dog indoors all the time is a lot worse, so maybe you are the abuser. And what chains do you speak of?? I have never chained any of my dogs. I never complained about my dogs barking, I simply said it was happening and ask for advice on how to minimize it to avoid a problem with my neighbor. I come to this thread to learn and to try to help people with problems that I have been through already not to be insulted. Is that how you got to post over 6,000 messages in less than one year, insulting people? BTW, that comes to about 20 posts per day :lol:. IMO YOU should get a life, and also maybe let your dog out more. I hope that is the last time you judge me. A simple message like "IMO spraying a dog as a form of training is cruel" would have suffice.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

I used the water-spray technique with Scooter when i first got my Canary. He was SO fixated on Cosmo that after distracting him with a game or calling him away with a treat he'd go straight back to the cage and stare.
I only turned to the spraying when i thought he looked like he was going to lunge at the cage. Filled up a squirt gun and sure enough, he did lunge at the cage and got sprayed as soon as he went for it. Only took about 3 squirts before he got the message.

I don't like using negative methods (this is the only one i've used) but i wasn't prepared to risk my bird's safety or sanity for the sake of a pain-free squirt in the face.


----------



## sue&harvey (Mar 10, 2010)

ixmahr42 said:


> How is spraying very small amounts of water the same as slapping a dog?  I feel I'm not hurting the dog in any way. I don't do this anymore, I only did it occasionally when Jerry was a puppy (he's 12 now.) However, I'd like to know if this is considered abuse. I didn't start using this forums long ago, and the idea is to educate myself.
> 
> BTW, is that a Beagle in your signature. I have a Beagle also, and my cat looks exactly the same as yours as well!


In many ways any aversive methods are on the same level. IMO it is the same as human stress, Stress is in the eye of the beholder. You can tolerate spiders, while I would run as far as possible sort of thing.

Ok it was many years ago, but more positive methods have been developed and many good trainers, really frown on these sorts of interuptions. Prefering to encourage owners to use more positive methods.

Not really sure what Harvey is, but he definitely has Beagle in him  and Kitty is a fab cat.

I think the way I view training is the same as schools, the way people were taught in the 40's is not how they are taught now. Dog training really has evolved too.

Hope you stick around to continue learning, there are some topics people are very passionate about, and there are some really knowledgable people here too.

Peps on this forum really helped me when we found out Harvey was suffering with SA and the only advice I got on the Island here was a scented collar for 125 :scared:

Thankfully peps here were great, and now not only did we not waste money, we worked hard, but being alone for Harvey may never be pleasurable, but at least he is safe in the knowledge he can settle knowing we always come back. No aversaries needed. 
:thumbup:


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> I'm not against aversives full stop, especially "mild" ones like being sprinkled with water. Life is full of them. But for me the issue is that *I don't want my dog to associate me with unpleasant things.* If I couldn't have done it without her knowing it was me I wouldn't have done it at all.


Agreed 

With Scooter and Cosmo, Scooter got fuss/a treat/a game if he came away from Cosmo's cage when asked to "Leave it", but on the handful of occasions when he _did_ go for the cage, i squirted him from a fair distance so he didn't twig the water was coming from me.


----------



## ixmahr42 (Sep 4, 2010)

Thanks for your advice sue&harvey, that is why I came here, to learn better ways. Some people however, do not know how to treat others, yet they feel they are the perfect pet owner. IMO if you don't know how to treat other people, then for sure you don't know how to treat your pets as they deserve. Some very good points in your post, thanks again! :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ixmahr42 said:


> ...what chains do you speak of?? I have never chained any of my dogs.


the "chains" i referred to were the behavior-chains: 
X stimulus triggers barking; when this happens repeatedly, it becomes automatic.  
cheers, 
- terry


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I do believe strongly in interrupting bad behaviour with whatever method is appropriate for the individual dog and handler. No good using a method that needs exact timing with a poor handler, and no good using something scary with a nervous dog - but everything can be worked round. 

I am not sure why a dog should become nervous or aggressive or not learn because it is shown clearly what is not wanted. Every dog used to be trained that way before the modern (probably temporary) phase for not correcting either children or dogs - therefore having a lot of out of control children and dogs - came about.

I would think that everyone on here would make the assumption that guide dogs are not bored, are not nervous and are not aggressive. My sister has a guide dog, a GSD, and she has to carry a water sprayer with her and I can assure you she does nothing that is not okd by the trainers. She is going to borrow a citronella collar from them too as her dog is bad with livestock. Oh wow, how could such experienced trainers possibly recommend and supply such awfully cruel aversives and risk their expensive dogs being ruined :lol:


----------



## Setter (May 5, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I do believe strongly in interrupting bad behaviour with whatever method is appropriate for the individual dog and handler. No good using a method that needs exact timing with a poor handler, and no good using something scary with a nervous dog - but everything can be worked round.
> 
> I am not sure why a dog should become nervous or aggressive or not learn because it is shown clearly what is not wanted. Every dog used to be trained that way before the modern (probably temporary) phase for not correcting either children or dogs - therefore having a lot of out of control children and dogs - came about.
> 
> I would think that everyone on here would make the assumption that guide dogs are not bored, are not nervous and are not aggressive. My sister has a guide dog, a GSD, and she has to carry a water sprayer with her and I can assure you she does nothing that is not okd by the trainers. She is going to borrow a citronella collar from them too as her dog is bad with livestock. Oh wow, how could such experienced trainers possibly recommend and supply such awfully cruel aversives and risk their expensive dogs being ruined :lol:


Totally agree with you. I do think over the years we have gone from one extreme to another as one minute we are hitting dogs and next we can't correct them at all. The world has gone bonkers, we need a happy medium!


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Setter said:


> Totally agree with you. I do think over the years we have gone from one extreme to another as one minute we are hitting dogs and next we can't correct them at all. The world has gone bonkers, we need a happy medium!


Whilst I understand what you mean, *OH NO WE DON'T!*

What people need are effective methods, clearly explained with a good animal behavioural foundation. It is very clear from listening to the general dog walker, that the message hasn't quite got through. Myself, if I'd not stumbled into a problem and thought I needed to find out more, then I would be quite happily doing what had always worked and would possibly see this as a political issue requiring compromise and reasonable happy medium to be stuck. This IS NOT such an issue, it is about how to enjoy dogs to the max, working or pets, and how to have them fit in happily in our world.

The initial context on the nervous dog, way back, was someone claiming that due to their Rescue dog's nervousness, water spraying was justified. That's part of the reason for the strong reaction against.

A water spray can be enjoyable fun play, seen as an aversive, or as an interruptor, there seems to be so much confusion on this, how could you honestly recommend it to persons and dogs unknown?

I just can't believe that the time spent stalking and staked out, waiting for behaviour to clamp down on and interrupt or punish, wouldn't be more profitably spent another way. At end of day, stopping anything, does not teach and reward desired behaviour.

Now I have been irritated by vandal squirrels and defecating cats and been tempted to use Super Soaker water pistols, but basically it is not very practical, and seems rather childish, not a serious way to do behaviour modification or train a dog.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Whilst I understand what you mean, *OH NO WE DON'T!*
> 
> What people need are effective methods, clearly explained with a good animal behavioural foundation. It is very clear from listening to the general dog walker, that the message hasn't quite got through.


Ahh but it is so much quicker and easier to blast a dog with water every time it performs the behaviour, even though the dog never learns anything by it because it continues to repeat the behaviour incurring the need for more sprays!  Actually setting to and teaching a dog through positive methods what behaviour will make you happier and more likely to reward the dog than the bad behaviour it is currently indulging in takes time and effort! Some people just do not want to see the sense in training a dog to prevent a behaviour long term and would rather justify their continual repetitions of aversives with "But it stops him, look!" - "But it stops him, look!" - "But it stops him, look!" - "But it stops him, look!" and so on.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> "But it stops him, look!" and so on.


*sigh sigh* Today I saw an inexperienced Dog owner, smack his Border Collie.

Yesterday the dog, demonstrated it's recal problem, tracking me and my dog. It is very eager to play with us. It follows me around, and has obeyed my commands (recall and sit) 100% without fail. I could have just left them looking for it, and it would have undoubtedly joined us without looking back. I actually put it on a lead and walked it back to the park, calling out for them, where I believed they'd most likely be.

The owner, claims 50% obedience to commands, I am trying to help by good example, encourage the improvements. The dog is going to training, and positive reinforcement is in use there.

What the course is not fixing, is the expectations, nor the penny dropping with the owner, that there's nothing wrong with his dog, it's the handling that's the problem. Is it surprising that the dog is ambivalent about it's owner, if it's treated unjustly?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Who said not correcting dogs or children? Dogs, I agree; children? I'd still give them a bloody good clout!


----------



## doodles mum (Jun 7, 2010)

sue&harvey said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> Here Here
> 
> Sorry but if these are the methods you choose to use then fine, but you will find that the majority on this forum would rather use positive methods that take a bit of time, but have fun with their dog, rather than shocking the poor little sod. Quick fixes don't last.


I agree positive methods are so much better.

If you use aversives, you are frightening the dog to stop the behaviour, you're not actually desensetising him or teaching him there's no reason to bark


----------



## doodles mum (Jun 7, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Who said not correcting dogs or children? Dogs, I agree; children? I'd still give them a bloody good clout!


really ?

and what does aggression towards children (or dogs) teach them ? .......

nothing at all


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Don't you know a joke when you read one?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by* Setter *
> I do think over the years we have gone from one extreme to another as one minute we are hitting dogs
> and next we can't correct them at all. The world has gone bonkers, we need a happy medium!





RobD-BCactive said:


> Whilst I understand what you mean, *OH NO WE DON'T!*
> 
> What people need are effective methods, clearly explained with a good animal behavioural foundation.
> It is very clear from listening to the general dog walker, that the message hasn't quite got through.


very much agree - 10-years ago, pos-R was a commonly-accepted standard; 
now we have a *rapidly growing franchise company* that uses + promotes shock-collars, 
*Not! on well-trained teenaged + adult-dogs to proof their cued fluent behaviors, 
but on any and every dog or puppy, from day-1 and lesson-1 on. * i find that appalling: a soft dog 
or a naive puppy is NOT going to react the same as a confident, outgoing, Bolshy teen-Lab would... 
and let's not forget, * gundogs * were the first group to use shock, but even they were being zapped only 
within the context of things they LOVED to do instinctively: hunt, point, fetch...

where is the "instinct" to heel, walk on a loose-leash, or leave play with another dog to RECALL? 


RobD-BCactive said:


> ...if I'd not stumbled into a problem... then I would... happily [do] what had always worked
> and... possibly see this as a political issue requiring compromise and reasonable happy medium
> to be struck. This IS NOT such an issue, it is about how to enjoy dogs to the max, working or pets,
> and how to have them fit in happily in our world.


 yes - 'needing' punishment is IME of many years, a common misconception. 


RobD-BCactive said:


> The initial context on the nervous dog [OP] was the owner's claim] that due to their Rescue dog's nervousness, water spraying was justified. That's part of the reason for the strong reaction against.
> 
> A water spray can be enjoyable fun play, seen as an aversive, or as an interruptor... how could you honestly recommend it to persons and dogs unknown?


yes - blanket-recommendations of any potential aversive are hazardous. 
ANY dog can be rewarded reliably; aversives, interruptors or punishers are very unpredictable, 
as what is mildly startling to one, is terrifying to another, and might be fun for a 3rd. 
*shock is the sole exception: electric-shock is not 'enjoyed' by any animal, over 60 years 
of behavioral-psych data is clear: if the animal can perceive it, they want to avoid or escape shock. 
there is no perceptible level that is 'pleasant' to any species. *


RobD-BCactive said:


> *bold and color added - *
> 
> I just can't believe that the *time spent stalking and staked out, waiting* for behaviour to clamp down on
> and interrupt or punish, *wouldn't be more profitably spent another way.
> At end of day, stopping anything, does not teach and reward desired behaviour. *


precisely :thumbup: U can PUNISH behaviors A thru Y, and U _*still*_ have not taught wanted-behavior Z.

excellent post, and a good explanation, 
-- terry


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Yikes,talk about serious.My dog training lessons over 10 years ago used this method,and it worked on my dog. We used washing up liquid bottles.

Calm down.They arent whipping them with sticks.Its just water


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

holly1 said:


> Yikes,talk about serious.My dog training lessons over 10 years ago used this method,and it worked on my dog. We used washing up liquid bottles.
> 
> Calm down.They arent whipping them with sticks.Its just water


I think the point is that water is terrifying to some dogs and spraying a dog in the face is unpleasant, even if they happen to like water. An aggressive dog is usually a nervous dog and this sort of interruptor is going to make him more nervous, and therefore more aggressive.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Calm down. They arent whipping them with sticks. Its just water


U did read the original post, H1? 
the dog is described as 'nervous' and has a biting-history; he barks at visitors and strangers, 
and he *bites* visitors whom he sees as threatening intruders. 
*whom we use X-method on, has a very significant weight.*

pray tell - 
How will spritzing him in the face, improve his impression of visitors? :huh: 
i can't think of any possible 'plus', while i can think of a dozen 'downsides' and side-effects. 
JMO + IME, 
- terry


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Calm down. They arent whipping them with sticks. Its just water


Is it? Doesn't matter if it is just water, the point is that it was used in the op specifically because it scared the dog out of the unwanted behaviour it was engaged in at that time. physical pain has nothing to do with it, it was used purely to frighten the animal.

Imagine you were terrified of loud noises and I kept coming up behind you and bursting balloons for no apparent reason, do you think that would be an enjoyable experience or do you think you would start to look over your shoulder a bit more often? If you were unable to figure out why I was doing it would you not quickly get quite frustrated? Nervous? Even angry? Why would you feel that way, after all its not like I was beating you with a stick is it?

The point people are trying to make here is that while this practice might stop the unwanted behaviour, it does not address the original cause of the behaviour which makes it very likely that the problem will then manifest itself in some other way.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Jasper's Bloke said:


> Is it? Doesn't matter if it is just water, the point is that it was used in the op specifically because it scared the dog out of the unwanted behaviour it was engaged in at that time. physical pain has nothing to do with it, it was used purely to frighten the animal.
> 
> Imagine you were terrified of loud noises and I kept coming up behind you and bursting balloons for no apparent reason, do you think that would be an enjoyable experience or do you think you would start to look over your shoulder a bit more often? If you were unable to figure out why I was doing it would you not quickly get quite frustrated? Nervous? Even angry? Why would you feel that way, after all its not like I was beating you with a stick is it?
> 
> The point people are trying to make here is that while this practice might stop the unwanted behaviour, it does not address the original cause of the behaviour which makes it very likely that the problem will then manifest itself in some other way.


That is also a good analogy. Think of something that you are terrified of, then imagine how you would feel if some smart so and so produced this terrifying thing every time you did something he did not approve of.

My Joshua is terrified of the blaster. I could stop his sometimes incessant barking by pointing it at him and turning it on, couldn't I? Would that make him any better, do you think? Or would it just make him a nervous wreck?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

My Shepherd loves to be sprayed with the hose;











The only time I've intentionally chucked water over a dog was when Sky was in her first season and a dog that wandered caught onto her scent and was forever outside the house crying. I tried catching the little bugger (did phone the warden but the owner got to it first) and was advised by members on here to either squirt it or pour a glass of water over it so I did... clever bugger moved so it didn't get him anyway :lol:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Totally agree with you. I do think over the years we have gone from one extreme to another as one minute we are hitting dogs and next we can't correct them at all. The world has gone bonkers, we need a happy medium!


I don't believe we do.

There is a vast and ever growing body of evidence that positive reinforcement can be used on any species with a central nervous system, from goldfish and chickens, through dogs and horses, to great apes, marine mammals and humans. 
It can do anything from teach basic cued behaviours (like sit) to complex routines like heelwork to music. It can teach animals to accept aversive proceudres (some labs train their monkeys to come to staff to be injected, or have a blood sample taken without needing to be restrained or anaesthetised). It can also be used to rehabilitate problem animals and cure unwanted behaviours.

Positive reinforcement is enjoyable for all concerned (both animal and trainer) and fosters a good relationship between them. It is very hard to get weriously wrong, and there is very little risk of causing either physical, emotional or behavioural damage to the animal, even if you do cock up!

On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that using negative reinforcement and / or positive punishment is a high risk, ineffective strategy.

There may be physical risks (as with choke chains, beatigs etc) and there are ALWAYS behavioural risks. Dogs that form unpleasent associations often end up wary - even fearful - of certain stimuli, and in some cases this results in either phobic behaviour or aggression.
With P+ you risk hurting or injuring the dog, you risk creating unwanted associations, you risk ruining your relationship and making the dog fearful of you.... and yet the dog has learned nothing.

Punishment is also often only effective in the short term, and / or in specific conditions. For example, punishing the dog for getting on the sofa may well result in the dog stopping getting up there - when you are present! Behaviours suppressed by P+ will often resurface under different conditions, or simply a few weeks or months down the line.

Teaching a wanted behaviour using R+ on the other hand will usually yield more effective and lasting results.

As Terry pointed out, punishing one behaviour does nothing to show the dog what you DO want.

It is unfortunate that many people still seem to think that punishment is somehow necessary, or more effective than positive reinforcement. It is NOT! Using punishment can ruin a good dog, a good relationship, and good behaviour. R+ Is more effective, more pleasent, more long lasting AND pain / fear / discomfort / etc free!



> Calm down.They arent whipping them with sticks.Its just water


A lot of people share this view. There is one problem with this however - punishment (and reward) are in the eye of the recipient - not the perpetrator!

Just because you don't find the idea of a squirt of water a big deal, doesn't mean that your dog - or my dog - or some other dog - won't find it a terrifying experience. Same with sound based punishers like rattle cans, pet correctors, etc. Some dogs will ignore them, some dogs will be interrupted but not distressed by them, but some dogs will be terrified and develop fear responses as a result of their use.

The problem is that no matter how "soft" your corrections of choice may be, ALL aversives share certain risks. If the DOG finds the experience aversive it may develop behavioural fallout such as phobias or aggression as a result. And of course, it is distinctly - and deliberately - unpleasent for the dog.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

How sad that nearly every dog pre 90s lived in a state of constant fear and that now at least 75 percent of pets and the majority of working dogs still do :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the big *PLUS list* for pos-R - 


Colette said:


> ...positive reinforcement can be used on any species with a central nervous system...
> It can... teach basic cued behaviours [or] complex routines like heelwork to music.
> It can teach animals to accept aversive procedures [injections, blood samples w/o restraint
> or anaesthesia]. It can also be used to rehabilitate problem animals and cure unwanted behaviours.
> ...


* it's broadly applicable and flexible 
* it's enjoyable for trainer and trainee
* it's safe and extremely low-risk 
* even if U get it wrong, there's minimal potential fallout


Colette said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> OTOH there is plenty of evidence that using negative reinforcement and / or positive punishment is high risk [and] ineffective...
> There may be physical risks... and there are ALWAYS behavioural risks.
> ...


U punish the dog for barking by spraying; then s/he stops barking While U are home, 
but now is more-anxious, and for the first time, begins barking *when U are Not Home.* 
what did U gain? *quiet when U are home.* what did U lose? *a relaxed, happy dog who felt 
secure in their familiar environment.* was it worth the price? 


Colette said:


> Teaching a wanted behaviour using R+ on the other hand will usually yield more effective and lasting results.
> [Pos-R] is more effective, more pleasant, more long lasting AND pain / fear / discomfort / etc free!


 Yes.  U install a desired behavior to replace the unwanted one, vs have the dog 
substitute an ongoing series of wrong answers; efficient, effective, enjoyable.

re: *"but it's only ________ ..."*


Colette said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> A lot of people share this view. There is one problem with this however -
> *punishment (and reward) are in the eye of the recipient* - not the perpetrator!
> ...


the big disadvantage of pos-P - *punishers, aversives, interruptors or corrections - 
is that until after U have used *it* whatever it may be, U cannot possibly predict 
what the individual's response will be; U may make an educated guess, but U cannot be certain 
and confidently predict there Will Be no fallout.* 
and of course, afterwards while there is plenty of leisure to regret that use, there is no way to erase it; 
U cannot go back in time to the moment *before* U used that tool or technique; it's done. (shrug)

that's why so many of my SoCal colleagues would rather treat the dog *before!* the A-rolls, 
pinning, bitey-hands, throw-chains, choke-collars, shock-use, shouting, ad infinitum: 
*the original problem is simpler and easier to address, before aversives are used.* 
now for the dog, B-Mod is more emotional, stressful, complicated and takes longer. 
*for the owner, it co$ts more - on top of any prior co$t for the pos-P. * where is the gain?

manage and control first to prevent unwanted behavior; make "being good" easy, and "being bad" difficult. 
* and bear in mind, prevention of problem behaviors, :thumbup: like preventing illness or injury, 
is always easier, cheaper and happier than a cure after the fact. *

happy training, 
-- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> How sad that nearly every dog pre 90s lived in a state of constant fear
> and that now at least 75 percent of pets and the majority of working dogs still do :lol:


who said that, blitz? :huh: my first dog in training was under my mentor in 1964 - neither he nor his classmates 
"lived in constant fear".


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

None of my parents' dogs growing up lived in fear of anything. They were treated in the old fashioned way, but were never what you might call trained anyway. They were all big dogs, all jumped up people, all would run off given half a chance and all spoilt rotten!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> None of my [family's] dogs growing-up lived in fear of anything. They were treated in the old fashioned way,
> but were *never what you might call trained* anyway. They were all *big dogs, all jumped up people,
> all would run off given half a chance* and all spoilt rotten!


made me laugh, NF - 
these are among the many reasons i prefer to actually train :lol: so that not only the *owner* love the dog! 
 saves a lot of time otherwise spent on apologies, catching the dog, and so on - plus the dog can go places: 
a well-behaved dog is welcome almost anywhere, short of indoor restaurants or a glassblower's shop.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> short of indoor restaurants


One evening I was sitting eating my dinner after working late in a restaurant in Switzerland, big fuss at the door doggy style *shrugged*. Someone from outside let it in.

It came to my table and went mental, I realised it *was a dog I knew* that I'd taken hiking in the Alps with my gf. About 5 mins later my gf, and the female dog owner arrived on scene, run away dog had been tracking, and they were in warm pursuit.

Some places they don't mind dogs in restaurants, and even let them visit on their own, guess they just expect them to pay the bill at the end...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Some places they don't mind dogs in restaurants, and even let them visit
> on their own, guess they just expect them to pay the bill at the end...


dogs always have the perfect excuse: no pockets. :laugh: most dogs who indulge a standing-account 
run a tab on their owner's name.


----------



## MyMillie (Jun 17, 2012)

I'm fairly new to Pet Forums and I have read all the responses (well, almost) in this thread with utmost interest and have found lots of good advice, thank you,.... but because I don't want to enter any debates on things like this, but will just say I go with my gut instinct when reading advice on anything, not just dog related, and go with that, my gut tells me to go with "positive" training method.

"leashedForLife", I REALLY don't mean to be rude please believe me, but I find your posts extremely difficult to read with the way you set them out, and have to say very irritating, yes, I use the smillies now and again to try and express that I am being friendly or mad if I have read an article on dog abuse etc, but yours are in excess, and all the quoting in one post just sends me over the edge...lol.. so sadly, after reading a couple of your posts, I now have found myself skipping what you write which is a shame because you maybe have something to say that could help me with some of my issues with my puppy?, would it be possible to write your content in a less irritating manner?, Sorry, but I'm almost certain I can't be the only one who feels like this, can I?

No offence intended!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

well i too have used a water spray, it's all well and good rewarding good behaviour, which i do but when there is such bad behaviour that they will not listen and continue on it needs to be stopped.

where i used it for alfie was when walking he would jump up at strangers and get too excited, people hated it who were scared of dogs and he wouldn't stop sa he enjoyed it more then positive rewards. i used the same spray as the op to get his attention and then reward the fact he had stopped, it was only a few times and now he is perfect and ignores until he is invited to be stroked by someone.

the big difference between a shock collar and water is the pain involved, water is nothing, you play around with it, water fights etc but an electric current is an entirely different thing.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MyMillie said:


> "leashedForLife", I REALLY don't mean to be rude please believe me, but I find your posts extremely difficult to read with the way you set them out, and have to say very irritating, yes, I use the smillies now and again to try and express that I am being friendly or mad if I have read an article on dog abuse etc, but yours are in excess, and all the quoting in one post just sends me over the edge...lol.. so sadly, after reading a couple of your posts, I now have found myself skipping what you write which is a shame because you maybe have something to say that could help me with some of my issues with my puppy?, would it be possible to write your content in a less irritating manner?, Sorry, but I'm almost certain I can't be the only one who feels like this, can I?
> 
> No offence intended!


I do feel talked down to and like i'm back at school when my quote has been corrected and then reposted, like when a teacher used to use a red pen on my work!


----------



## MyMillie (Jun 17, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I do feel talked down to and like i'm back at school when my quote has been corrected and then reposted, like when a teacher used to use a red pen on my work!


LOL.... I knew it reminded me of something! I couldn't put my finger on it, but no wonder I forgot, it's been 45yrs since I was at school


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> well i too have used a water spray, it's all well and good rewarding good behaviour, which i do but when there is such bad behaviour that they will not listen and continue on it needs to be stopped.


Water spraying is lazy dog training. 
It's unlikely to be the dog that is not listening, but the human in honesty (who is not "listening" to their dogs body language).
The idea is that you think more carefully about the specific cues or triggers to which your dog performs an unwanted behaviour or behaviour chain and recondition a new more rewarding and socially acceptable (in human terms) behaviour. 
In doing so the dog will have a better relationship with you, his human, because you are not so unpredictable (sometimes she is nice, sometimes she sprays me in the face!) Avoids conflicted behaviour.

By only punishing the old behaviour you are only half solving the problem because you are not telling your dog what you would rather he should do!
In the example you use of spraying a dog for jumping up at strangers, the dog is likely to regress at some point, say if particularly aroused because he will revert to the old behaviour in the absence of being taught an alternative way to behave. 
Spraying a dog for jumping up at strangers is also a particularly bad idea because in short the presence of an unpleasant (whether it is intensely painful or not is irrelevant- the fact that it is aversive is enough to deter a behaviour is enough to categorize it alongside e-collars) stimuli that is paired with the appearance of strangers could very easily teach a cautious dog that strangers are bad news! 
Oh??? But he is jumping up- so he is a naturally confident dog you say?
Depends on the dog... not necessarily. Many dogs, including one of my own rescue dogs would jump up at people to appease them, when she was slightly anxious.
Can you imagine what spraying such a sensitive dog could have done to her confidence and perception of strangers?
For the record- she doesn't jump up now because she has been rewarded for a better alternative.

Each to their own, but I'd personally rather have a positive relationship with my dogs, where they look to me for guidance rather than get conflicted because I might spray them.

JMO.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> Water spraying is lazy dog training.
> It's unlikely to be the dog that is not listening, but the human in honesty (who is not "listening" to their dogs body language).
> The idea is that you think more carefully about the specific cues or triggers to which your dog performs an unwanted behaviour or behaviour chain and recondition a new more rewarding and socially acceptable (in human terms) behaviour.
> In doing so the dog will have a better relationship with you, his human, because you are not so unpredictable (sometimes she is nice, sometimes she sprays me in the face!) Avoids conflicted behaviour.
> ...


well i have to disagree completely with most of this.

alfie has a great bond with me, looks up to me, lights up when i come in the room and loves to play etc, he is a very outgoing dog, the most outgoing i have ever had or seen others with and many agree.

the bond i have with him he trusts in and relys on, so there is no issue there.

he is also never weary of strangers, to the detriment of himself, he sometimes wants attention even from people who are out for trouble.

there was no stopping him doing it and he could have hurt himself or other people by continuing this behaviour so it was not a lazy option, it was the only one really and it didnt hurt him or make him fearful, it got his attention and made him realise to jump up was not allowed, he stopped after 3 walks and we have never looked back.

if you saw how he interacts with me and others there is no way you would believe it has harmed our relationship or his love of all people.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing!

You can disagree with it BUT any decent positive behaviourist or trainer (companion animal behaviour and training is an industry that is quickly become standardized and therefore very academic) would agree with my preference against the active use of aversives.

I think ultimately you and I are looking at it from two different angles. 

You are looking at it and my comments, exclusively in relation to your own dog (not how they were intentioned BTW- rather a general comment on the use of water-sprays/aversives) and your personal criteria and "assessment" of him behaviourally in your own sphere.

I am looking at it from the perspective of behaviour science and the effect on the human-animal bond and emotional responses, as well as it's application to a wide variety of dogs (breeds, personalities, backgrounds). 

Personally I would and do suggest to those that I train to avoid the use of aversives and will attempt to suggest where possible, practical applications of more positive and conflict-avoiding methods to solve such problems.

Behaviour-science is complex and is not always so black and white


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

lemmsy said:


> By only punishing the old behaviour you are only half solving the problem because you are not telling your dog what you would rather he should do!
> In the example you use of spraying a dog for jumping up at strangers, the dog is likely to regress at some point, say if particularly aroused because he will revert to the old behaviour in the absence of being taught an alternative way to behave.
> Spraying a dog for jumping up at strangers is also a particularly bad idea because in short the presence of an unpleasant (whether it is intensely painful or not is irrelevant- the fact that it is aversive is enough to deter a behaviour is enough to categorize it alongside e-collars) stimuli that is paired with the appearance of strangers could very easily teach a cautious dog that strangers are bad news!
> Oh??? But he is jumping up- so he is a naturally confident dog you say?
> ...


I heartily agree with all of this.

Just want to say, I dont think a squirt of water is the end of the world, however as a teaching tool, its not effective enough IMO. As explained above, it only teaches the dog that if they do X, theyll get a squirt of water. 
What of the dog who figures, well, I know its going to cost me a squirt of water - eh, its worth it."?
What of the dog who somehow relates the squirt of water to the person theyre jumping on, not the person doing the squirting?
What of the dog who develops superstitious behaviors because of the squirting?
What of the dog who enjoys it?

In our household we have a very specific reason we dont use startle tactics to train. Our four giant and large dogs live in a busy household with two young kids who often have young visitors. I want my dogs to NOT react to startling stimuli, and I certainly dont want them to think it is something negative. 
Between water gun fights outside (with the younger two dogs heavily involved) and foam sword fights inside and squealing and running kids etc., I need to know that the dogs will be calm, controlled and confident, and not feel that a stray smack with a foam sword or a random squirt is anything to react to.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> Behaviour-science is complex and is not always so black and white


that means though that each dog is an individual and each dog/breed would respond differently to this and therefore can never be written off without proper thought as there are many instances where its has worked successfully!


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

I find it worked to be setting the bar far too low when it comes to affecting behavior in sentient beings 

Plenty of things work. Shooting a dog who chases sheep works. Guaranteed. That dog will never chase sheep again.
Shock collars work.
Choking, hitting, kicking, startling, forcing, flooding... To an extent, these methods all work. 

Just as eating nothing but iceberg lettuce and drinking diet coke for a month would probably work to lose weight.
Doesnt make it advisable 


Absolutely, every dog is an individual, but EVERY dog is subject to the laws of behavioral science in the same way. The difference lies in what the dog considers motivating, distracting, what the dogs instincts are etc. Doesnt change the fact that dogs ALL respond the same way to reinforcers and punishers.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I find "it worked" to be setting the bar far too low when it comes to affecting behavior in sentient beings
> 
> Plenty of things "work". Shooting a dog who chases sheep "works". Guaranteed. That dog will never chase sheep again.
> Shock collars "work".
> ...


i really disagree with the last sentence. not all dogs respond the same way to positive treatments, take alfie as a case example he is not food orientated at all, will not restrain himself for the good of a treat of any worth. he is very people orientated and so would much rather see and jump up for a fuss then get a treat, however when a quick spray of water was used to get his attention away from the person back to look at me and then he would get the positive reinforcement for being good and ignoring the person.

also not all dogs respond the same way to punishers, some are aggressive after being punished whereas some are meek. it really depends on the individual. 
it is approaching a year since he was squirted on a walk and he never jumps up and still is very friendly towards people, i just think you cannot write it off for every dog as being a bad thing or as bad as an electric collar which is pain to the dog as opposed to a start, (the same can be said of a loud noise startling a dog).

sometimes it is a short lived thing that helps no end, and if used to get the attention away and then good behaviour rewarded it really is a good tool to use.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I used water when I took back one of my Mal pups at the age of two to stop his fixation with my cat. High prey drive meant the cats life was in danger and had to be fixed asap. I used a 5ml syringe and waited for him to try and get the cat, each time he did I squirted it from the palm of my hand, said nothing and looked the other way. Did it literally about six times and he completely left the cat alone, looked at him but no more. He went on to live with another Mal and a ten year old cat with pics of them both on the sofa - brilliant. A teaspoon of water isn't going to harm anyone let alone a 40kgs Mal but his prey drive could have killed the cat! 

Sometimes there isn't time to faff about, short, sharp and very effective for what I needed and didn't ruin the dog in the process.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, every dog is an individual, but EVERY dog is subject to the laws of behavioral science in the same way. The difference lies in what the dog considers motivating, distracting, what the dogs instincts are etc. Doesnt change the fact that dogs ALL respond the same way to reinforcers and punishers.
> ...


Saying you dont agree that dogs dont respond the same way to punishers and reinforcers is like saying you disagree with gravity. Gravity might not *look* the same as you watch a feather and a rock fall from the sky, but I can assure you, gravity applies the same to both 

When I talk about reinforcers, Im not talking about solely food. Im talking about whatever the *dog* finds rewarding. That is the definition of a reinforcer. Something the dog will seek to gain again (by repeating the behavior). 
So if you have a dog who doesnt work to gain food, it doesnt mean that dog doesnt work for reinforcers, it just means that food is not an appropriate reinforcer for that dog. Some dogs will work for an opportunity to sniff, others for an opportunity to tug on a favorite toy, others for a chance to socialize with fun dogs, others will stand on their head for a ball or a chance to play with a flirt pole, or jump over obstacles on an agility course. Whatever the *dog* finds rewarding is your reinforcer.

In the same way, anything the *dog* finds punishing will cause a behavior to stop. Some dogs dont find being squirted with water punishing at all. Three of my 4 dogs find a good smack on the rear oodles of fun and would not consider that punishing at all. Thats not to say punishment doesnt work on them, just that what they consider punishing differs.

This is a great, concise explanation of what punishers and reinforcers are. Just remember, the consequent behavior defines whether the stimulus was punishing or rewarding, NOT what *we* think of the stimulus.
Classical and Operant Conditioning

HTH


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Malmum said:


> I used water when I took back one of my Mal pups at the age of two to stop his fixation with my cat. High prey drive meant the cats life was in danger and had to be fixed asap. I used a 5ml syringe and waited for him to try and get the cat, each time he did I squirted it from the palm of my hand, said nothing and looked the other way. Did it literally about six times and he completely left the cat alone, looked at him but no more. He went on to live with another Mal and a ten year old cat with pics of them both on the sofa - brilliant. A teaspoon of water isn't going to harm anyone let alone a 40kgs Mal but his prey drive could have killed the cat!
> 
> Sometimes there isn't time to faff about, short, sharp and very effective for what I needed and didn't ruin the dog in the process.


Mmmm...
If it was really a case of very strong instinctive, hard-wired behaviours linked to the predatory chase sequence (prey drive) as you suggest- a spray of water would likely have done little to deter him. 
The internal reinforcement that dogs gets from such behaviours would be likely to far out-way the punisher. Because even with the presence of the punisher the behaviour chain is still hugely rewarding for the dog to perform (internal reinforcement)! The other explanation is that the dog may also be so aroused when performing set hard-wired behaviour chains that unnecessary cognitions and unnecessary senses are temporarily "turned off". 
How do I stop my dog chasing? - David Ryan CCAB

For the above reasons, if as you state, it only took six repetitions for the dog to stop chasing the cat (the unwanted behaviour became extinct), then it seems VERY unlikely that it was a case of particularly high prey drive (internal reinforcer would have overcome this). 
There is of course the consideration that the behaviour isn't extinct and that the dog does still chase the cat or did initially but has finally habituated to this specific one. However once again, if this was the case it was certainly not a case of particularly high prey drive.

For the record I do not doubt that Mals as a breed have high prey drive (I know it) but simply that perhaps the specific behaviour you labelled as very high prey drive, in I assume, a young pup, was actually a misdiagnosis.

I certainly would not trust the use of such aversives (a water-bottle) in the place of an intense programme of redirection and proofing against (unwanted) prey drive (targets), especially if as you suggested he could have killed the cat! 



ouesi said:


> Saying you don't agree that dogs don't respond the same way to punishers and reinforcers is like saying you disagree with gravity. Gravity might not *look* the same as you watch a feather and a rock fall from the sky, but I can assure you, gravity applies the same to both


Exactly 



> When I talk about reinforcers, I'm not talking about solely food.


I was just about to come along and say this!

Reinforcers are anything the dog finds rewarding; they may be food, toys, being given a release cue to play, pee, play with other dogs, tug etc... The things one dog finds rewarding may be different to another but they are all still reinforcers. And the way that dogs respond to reinforcers (whatever their individual preferences may be) are the same- the reinforcer serves to increase the probability of the behaviour being repeated. 
If you are a good trainer you will get your dog to work "with you" and offer you the correct behaviours in order to make reinforcement happen!

Do you ever get the feeling you are going around in circles, Ouesi?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

ok, so alfies reinforcers will be to play but even when offered in an enticing voice and showing him his toys, it did nothing as he would rather see the person.

sometimes it is what it is and a short few times doing it does the trick, no harm done.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

lemmsy said:


> Do you ever get the feeling you are going around in circles, Ouesi?


LOL! Why yes, Lemmsy, I do! Where were you on the last thread where I was told I dont understand how dogs learn when I tried to post this?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> Reinforcers are anything the dog finds rewarding; they may be food, toys, being given a release cue to play, pee, play with other dogs, tug etc... The things one dog finds rewarding may be different to another but they are all still reinforcers. And the way that dogs respond to reinforcers (whatever their individual preferences may be) are the same- the reinforcer serves to increase the probability of the behaviour being repeated.
> If you are a good trainer you will get your dog to work "with you" and offer you the correct behaviours in order to make reinforcement happen!
> 
> Do you ever get the feeling you are going around in circles, Ouesi?


Gotta agree. I've used all sorts of weird and wonderful things as rewards. I figure if it's what the dog wants then no matter how meaningless it may seem to us humans it can be used as a reward. Spencer likes to carry my keys which I find a little bizarre but whatever floats his boat lol.

I love figuring out what makes my dog tick in different situations. Spen's a foodie (of course, he's a Lab!) but sometimes sniffing a bush or meeting another dog or getting attention off a stranger are far more reinforcing to him than any food I can offer. When it's possible instead of fighting it I try to give him what he wants in return for him doing something for me. That was how I trained my supposedly untrainable Rupert, if it worked for him I can't see it not working for Spencer who I don't think even the worst trainer would call untrainable.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

The values of specific reinforcers can be situation- dependant.



emmaviolet said:


> ok, so alfies reinforcers will be to play but even when offered in an enticing voice and showing him his toys, it did nothing as he would rather see the person. *You missed one out!*


RATHER:



emmaviolet said:


> ok, so alfies reinforcers generally will be to play etc
> ...
> but even when offered in an enticing voice and showing him his toys, in the given situation (greeting new people)...he would rather see the person.


And thus... you answered your own dilemma!
Greeting the person was more high value! 
Using the premack principle... you could have asked him to show a controlled behaviour first (a sit for instance) and then could have rewarded him with being acknowledged and very calmly stroked etc by the person (this is called a functional reward). If he cannot sit, he is too wound up to be operant and make good choices, so you need to lessen the intensity of the "stimulus" until you get to a position where he can make a good choice and then, with a history of being rewarded for the better choice at this level under your belt, begin to gradually increase the intensity of the stimulus (in relative terms- probably the proximity of the person) and reward appropriately. When you do not have the opportunity to "train" and reward the right choice, management is employed (so that the dog doesn't make the wrong choice). (Good option for offlead).

You could have also employed parking.



> sometimes it is what it is and a short few times doing it does the trick, no harm done.


Perhaps 
But the use of aversive in the situation you described and generally seems unnecessary, especially when you could train a more reliable response using positive methods. 

There is alot more to dog training than just rather crudely spraying a dog, just as rewards are not restricted to rewarding with "tit-bits". 
It's amazing really


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

I don't think there's anything terrible about a tiny squirt of lukewarm water - if it's timed properly and the dog definitely understands it's caused by what he's just done.

To compare a small squirt of water with a shock collar is slightly OTT, in my humble opinion.

I have used the squirt bottle a few times with Dex, when nothing else stopped him leaping up at guests; I tried every other method recommended and nothing had any effect. But two occasions when I squirted a small bit of water did the trick.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Sarah1983 said:


> Gotta agree. I've used all sorts of weird and wonderful things as rewards. I figure if it's what the dog wants then no matter how meaningless it may seem to us humans it can be used as a reward. Spencer likes to carry my keys which I find a little bizarre but whatever floats his boat lol.


Awwww Gundogs are us! My auntie's labby brings her her slippers every morning just for the fun of it


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

> I don't think there's anything terrible about a tiny squirt of lukewarm water


I think that depends on the dog personally. Spray Spencer with water and he thinks it's a game. Spray Rupert with water (even a gentle spritz type thing) and he turned into a quivering, terrified wreck. I think this is the problem with using any aversive, for one dog it may be something they're indifferent to, for another it may be something they don't like and will try to avoid, for another it may be something absolutely terrible. And until you try it how do you know which it will be?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Sarah1983 said:


> I think that depends on the dog personally. Spray Spencer with water and he thinks it's a game.


Quite. I know someone who uses a squirt of water into the air (dog "catches" it) as a reward with their springer :lol: But then the spangle in question is a bit ut: but lovely


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> Awwww Gundogs are us! My auntie's labby brings her her slippers every morning just for the fun of it


Sadly Spen would prefer to run off with things than fetch them  I think it got him attention in his previous home and it's proving a tough habit to break.

I'm teaching Spencer to carry the washing down to the cellar. I just need to teach him to hold the bag by the handles though, at the moment I have to trail behind him picking up the clothes that fall out :lol:


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

ouesi said:


> LOL! Why yes, Lemmsy, I do! Where were you on the last thread where I was told I dont understand how dogs learn when I tried to post this?


Oh yikes! 
Where was I? Probably doing all the other things I ought to be doing too now! Woops!


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

lemmsy said:


> Greeting the person was more high value!
> Using the premack principle... you could have asked him to show a controlled behaviour first (a sit for instance) and then could have rewarded him with being acknowledged and very calmly stroked etc by the person (this is called a functional reward). If he cannot sit, he is too wound up to be operant and make good choices, so you need to lessen the intensity of the "stimulus" until you get to a position where he can make a good choice and then, with a history of being rewarded for the better choice at this level under your belt, begin to gradually increase the intensity of the stimulus (in relative terms- probably the proximity of the person) and reward appropriately. When you do not have the opportunity to "train" and reward the right choice, management is employed (so that the dog doesn't make the wrong choice). (Good option for offlead).
> 
> You could have also employed parking.


Premack principle is great. Parking is another great way to minimize the choices an over-aroused dog has. I also like go crazy freeze to teach impulse control with dogs overly stimulated by human contact. Even putting the behavior on cue could work. (This is how I manage chasing with my prey driven dogs.)

I love the I tried everything line (sarcasm). It implies that the dog *made* the human chose the punishment route.
I always want to ask people when they say I tried EVERYTHING if they put on a grass skirt, a coconut bra, and danced the hula hula for their dog? Seriously. What does everything mean?

I mean, I get it. There are certain things I wont do. I wont use humping as a reinforcer no matter how much I admire Jean Donaldson, and I wont put dehydrated liver in my mouth to spit at my dogs. (Though I will happily spit cheese at them.) 
But when I fail and the dog does not learn, that is MY failure. Not the dogs.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

lemmsy said:


> Oh yikes!
> Where was I? Probably doing all the other things I ought to be doing too now! Woops!


Oh its buried somewhere now. Sadly Im on a different time zone, and this forum is rather busy - a good thing! But it makes it hard to keep up with threads.

I mentioned how praise is often not so much rewarding as a non-punishment marker, and it was not taken well LOL


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Premack principle is great. Parking is another great way to minimize the choices an over-aroused dog has.


Yeah... amongst other methods (which details specific 2 on 2 off criteria) we often use the premack principle for teaching stopped contacts for agility (and of course start line waits)!
We build up the release (to the toy or food pot or crate- Susan Garrett style) to be the best thing ever and they learn that self control earns the release!

Parking is fab and also works well with fearful or less confident dogs in my experience if used alongside gradual habituation to increasingly intense environments. Kind of like a "I've got your back, that's your safe zone, you settle there and I'll deal with whatever comes".



> Even putting the behavior on cue could work. (This is how I manage chasing with my prey driven dogs.)


Guess what?
Same 
I trained (well put it on cue- he knows what he is doing) my very drivey, strong working sheepdog to herd (on verbal, body and whistle cues) and we work regularly  Because we cater to those strong hard-wired FAP responses, he is able to switch off more readily than he would have otherwise and deals considerably better with urban life. Having it on verbal and body cues, means that if needed I can immediately redirect his attention, with a specific whistle cue which is paired with the appearance of his herding ball (I always keep my promises especially with this one!) :thumbup:



> I mean, I get it. There are certain things I wont do. I wont use humping as a reinforcer no matter how much I admire Jean Donaldson, and I wont put dehydrated liver in my mouth to spit at my dogs. (Though I will happily spit cheese at them.)
> But when I fail and the dog does not learn, that is MY failure. Not the dogs.


Quite. 

I once saw a video of an in season bitch being placed at the end of a jump sequence as a reward. The (very aroused) dog got to go and sniff the bitch!
The bitch didn't seem to mind but there is something about that, that ethically I do not like! The bitch may not have taken offense but she may have found it even mildly stressful and that is not on!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Oh its buried somewhere now. Sadly Im on a different time zone, and this forum is rather busy - a good thing! But it makes it hard to keep up with threads.
> 
> I mentioned how praise is often not so much rewarding as a non-punishment marker, and it was not taken well LOL


I would really have liked to have seen that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

lemmsy said:


> Quite.
> 
> I once saw a video of an in season bitch being placed at the end of a jump sequence as a reward. The (very aroused) dog got to go and sniff the bitch!
> The bitch didn't seem to mind but there is something about that, that ethically I do not like! The bitch may not have taken offense but she may have found it even mildly stressful and that is not on!


Saw that same video (it was snowing I think?) and thought the same thing. I get it, I see the point - that anything *can* be a reinforcer, but I felt the same way, wondering how the bitch felt about it.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I would really have liked to have seen that.


Think (not 100% certain) it was on the thread about whether you can train a dog without treats in the dog chat section if that's any help.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Premack principle is great. Parking is another great way to minimize the choices an over-aroused dog has. I also like go crazy freeze to teach impulse control with dogs overly stimulated by human contact. Even putting the behavior on cue could work. (This is how I manage chasing with my prey driven dogs.)
> *
> I love the I tried everything line (sarcasm). It implies that the dog *made* the human chose the punishment route.*
> I always want to ask people when they say I tried EVERYTHING if they put on a grass skirt, a coconut bra, and danced the hula hula for their dog? Seriously. What does everything mean?
> ...



Is this aimed at me....? If not please feel welcome to ignore this  :

If it is aimed at me then just to note, I followed all the suggestions given to me by two separate trainers, as well as all the advice I could find online re how to stop Dex jumping up at visitors.

I keep him away from the front door for the most part, but if I'm out and my brother is here, he is less rigorous about keeping Dex away from visitors when they first arrive. Thus I had to use something which worked - and a tiny squirt of lukewarm water* did* work.

I agree with what someone said about the importance of knowing your dog; I knew the water would not traumatise or remotely upset my dog. What it did do was break a habit that was proving resistant to* everything else I tried.*

.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

No Owned, not aimed at you  Just a line I hear over and over and over and it irritates me.

I tried everything and the prong collar was the only thing that worked to be able to walk my great dane.
I tried everything and the shock collar was the only thing that worked to teach my dog recall.
I tried everything and the alpha roll was the only thing that made my dog stop jumping.

Its the line of choice for those looking for justification for their actions. It conveniently takes the blame off the owner (who has tried everything) and puts it on the dog. It bugs me when people blame the dogs instead of their own inadequacies as trainers because it makes it easier to reach for that aversive again, and again, and again.

Suzanne Clothier explains it very nicely in her blog I had to. Well worth a read IMO. 
"I had to..." | Suzanne Clothier

Its not that youre never going to end up using aversives to get a dog to stop doing somthing, its that if you do, be honest about it.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> No Owned, not aimed at you  Just a line I hear over and over and over and it irritates me.
> 
> "I tried everything and the prong collar was the only thing that worked to be able to walk my great dane."
> "I tried everything and the shock collar was the only thing that worked to teach my dog recall."
> ...


I have also used 'this line' & in no way did I mean it to infer that I was 'blaming' my dog for my decision.

As I said in other posts I did try 'everything' in trying to reduce Roxy's reactivity to other dogs. By 'everything' I mean advice from here, advice/techniques from various books as well as advice/classes with a behaviourist.

For approx 18ths I tried so it's not as it I was just after a quick fix. At times, comments can seems quite insensitive (but that's probably just me!) as my days /weeks/months were centred around Roxy & her issues. All the books I read were of dog behaviour, everything I looked at online was to try & help Roxy, my days/weekends were dedicated to Roxy to the point my OH had to tell me that I did have other priorities 

I make no justifications in chosing an aversive (noise interrupter) which I used once with Roxy (months ago). I also do not think of it as a 'failure' on anyones part that I chose this. I do not claim to be an experienced dog owner, quite the oppositte, so when recommeded, qualified behaviorists also were unable to help me (& dropped us from classes) I had to do something to improve behaviour as I wasn't prepared to spend another 18mths continuing as we were.

Maybe others have more time, more experience, more patience but I didn't. I used an aversive & am glad I did. I now know that by interrupting Roxy's behaviour is the key to prevent it escalating.

We now attend 'normal' dog training classes & have recently graduated again. We are also about to start fun flyball & agility classes, something I could never have imagined a year ago.

Whilst I agree that people do need patience, should try to understand their dog, the behaviour, why it is occurring, etc I do also think that us owners who really have put the work in shouldn't be thought of as lazy or wanting 'quick fixes'


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

Cleo did you read the blog I linked? Like I said, she explains it better than I do.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Well I tried everything I could find that might possibly help with Ruperts prey drive, nothing worked. I'll admit I looked into shock collars but was told they quite likely wouldn't work either given his history of successful hunting. I opted for management, keeping him on a long line most of the time and only letting him off in secure areas.

Maybe someone with more experience could have fixed Rupert and his long list of issues but I honestly doubt it. I don't think all problems are fixable.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Cleo did you read the blog I linked? Like I said, she explains it better than I do.


Just did!

I do admit that I am far from a perfect dog owner. I have shouted at Roxy, jerked her leash when she hads been pulling, & despaired of her behviour at times - I am not proud of myself for this

I have as mentioned in the blog, I have questioned myself afterwards & realised that my reactions were my failings not Roxy's. I did feel terrible for not being more patient with her as I do realise she is reacting in a way she has become used to doing not because she is being 'naughty' or 'disobedient'. I have learnt alot from my reactions (or how not to react!) as well as Roxy.

But ... I have used an aversive which I do realise people here still refer to (at times) as a quick fix - I disagree to an extent. Maybe my use of one was coupled with a change in her behaviour, my recognition of stopping her escalating whining, forcing her to look at me - who knows but things have improved.

I would never have used even a noise aversive with her intially as she was quite an anxious, stressy dog. Some may say that by using one I did risk triggering this again which I did asses but realised that she had made such improvements that I didn't believe this would be an issue.

As in the blog, I do hold myself accountable for the choices I made & continue to make


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2012)

Nobody is a perfect dog owner or dog trainer. I know I certainly fall WAY short!

To me its simply about being honest, accountable, and NOT blaming the dog.
Rescues are a whole nother ball of wax. Dogs that come to you with seemingly unsolvable issues that you played no part in creating but ended up stuck with solving. Its frustrating as heck!!! But just because the dog isnt responding to us the way we think he should doesnt make it the dogs fault. Its the fault of whoever screwed the dog up to begin with, and yes, our shortcomings as trainers.

I dont judge anyone for using force or aversives. I know a lovely lady who uses a prong collar on her rottie. She is a young 70+ years old, inherited this dog from an awful situation, has done beautifully by this dog, and has arthritis and cant manage the plastic clips on harnesses and head collars. Its either a prong for this guy or no walks. 
Is it ideal? Nope. Id love to see this boy in a harness, but Im not going to drive out to her house every day twice a day to help her put it on. I fully understand having to do what works for you and your dog and your situation.

What I dont condone is saying the *dog* is the reason aversives are needed, and justifying our choices by blaming the dog.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Nobody is a perfect dog owner or dog trainer. I know I certainly fall WAY short!
> 
> To me its simply about being honest, accountable, and NOT blaming the dog.
> Rescues are a whole nother ball of wax. Dogs that come to you with seemingly unsolvable issues that you played no part in creating but ended up stuck with solving. Its frustrating as heck!!! But just because the dog isnt responding to us the way we think he should doesnt make it the dogs fault. Its the fault of whoever screwed the dog up to begin with, and yes, our shortcomings as trainers.
> ...


I do understand what you mean, that why I said in earlier post about me maybe being a bit 'touchy' about certain comments 

I do find with rescue dogs (as both mine are) that I don't want to fall in to the trap of justifying Roxy's (poor Roxy - it's always her!) behaviour or my poor management by constantly saying 'Oh, but she's a rescue' as if that's a get out clause somehow.

I would do alot different looking back with hindsight but then I suppose I have (& will) learn through my mistakes. I do try my best, hopefully learn through mistakes, recognise my shortcomings & try to improve.

I agree 100% about being honest though. If we have had a bad walk, bad training sessions rather than getting angry about what we haven't acheived I will try & lookn at why. I have learnt that it's always best to start at the beginning, not to race ahead (as I have a tendancy to do ) & take my time! I'm sure Roxy would agree that it has been difficult getting me to see this


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Oh I never blamed Rupert for his behaviour problems, wasn't his fault at all. But at the same time I'm not going to blame myself for not being able to fix those problems. Rupert was the way he was for god knows how many reasons and although he came a hell of a long way from where he was when I got him he fell far short of normal. I'm sure my shortcomings as a trainer played some part in it but the whole "no bad dogs, only bad owners" thing doesn't ring true to me. I'm not saying Rupert was a bad dog, far from it. However I don't believe he was a mentally stable dog and I think that played a _huge_ part in his problems.

However, the ways I used to train him were the ways I chose to use, not ways I had to use. I see what you're saying with that and it is too easy to blame the dog for whatever reason when it's not the dogs fault at all. I can blame Spencer for pulling all I want but at the end of the day it's my fault for not putting enough work in or not communicating clearly enough or not reinforcing him well enough or something.

And I'll admit to lying on my back with my knee feeling like it's been hit with a sledgehammer screaming like a fishwife at Spencer after he knocked me over  Hardly my finest moment as an owner or trainer.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> Oh I never blamed Rupert for his behaviour problems, wasn't his fault at all. But at the same time I'm not going to blame myself for not being able to fix those problems. Rupert was the way he was for god knows how many reasons and although he came a hell of a long way from where he was when I got him he fell far short of normal. I'm sure my shortcomings as a trainer played some part in it but the whole "no bad dogs, only bad owners" thing doesn't ring true to me. I'm not saying Rupert was a bad dog, far from it. However I don't believe he was a mentally stable dog and I think that played a _huge_ part in his problems.
> 
> However, the ways I used to train him were the ways I chose to use, not ways I had to use. I see what you're saying with that and it is too easy to blame the dog for whatever reason when it's not the dogs fault at all. I can blame Spencer for pulling all I want but at the end of the day it's my fault for not putting enough work in or not communicating clearly enough or not reinforcing him well enough or something.
> 
> And I'll admit to lying on my back with my knee feeling like it's been hit with a sledgehammer screaming like a fishwife at Spencer after he knocked me over  Hardly my finest moment as an owner or trainer.


I do agree with all of this! I do have a tendancy to blame myself for most things; Roxy's issues, not manging them properly, not being patient, even getting her in the first place ... the list is endless!

But I have also realised that it is pointless beating myself up over my short comings, I need to look at them, take on board advice, learn from mistakes & move on.

I think there are situations Roxy will never be comfortable in & I will never force these but I do want to make sure that she does get to experience things she will enjoy. By learning to be ok with other dogs means that she will have nore interaction, at classes she can try new things, new sports, etc which IMO she would love as she is so excited by new things.

Both my dogs have knocked me flying countless times, I can't really try to convince them that I am in any way 'in control' when I am flat on my back, winded, laying in the garden ...... bl**dy dogs !


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Nobody is a perfect dog owner or dog trainer. I know I certainly fall WAY short!
> 
> To me its simply about being honest, accountable, and NOT blaming the dog.
> Rescues are a whole nother ball of wax. Dogs that come to you with seemingly unsolvable issues that you played no part in creating but ended up stuck with solving. Its frustrating as heck!!! But just because the dog isnt responding to us the way we think he should doesnt make it the dogs fault. Its the fault of whoever screwed the dog up to begin with, and yes, our shortcomings as trainers.
> ...


I certainly don't 'blame' Dexter. In fact I love that he's so happy and exuberant around people - even though he had a lousy start in life and was dumped by his previous owners, he still adores people. I think that makes him pretty amazing 

For me using an aversive (tiny squirt of water) was an act of sheer desperation. Nothing I tried was working - no doubt, my fault. Like CLEO, I had tried two trainers one-on-one, as well as three different classes. In short, I tried for months on end and when one day Dex jumped up and accidentally scratched someone on their face, I felt I had to try something new, hence the squirt of water.

I do still maintain however that a swift squirt of water is not the equivalent of a shock collar, and that's why I took issue with the assertion that it was (I forget who said it in this thread!).


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The Possibilities in Dog Training | Susan Garrett&#039;s Dog Training Blog


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2012)

Ah Smokey, LOVE that blog post! 
Have you seen this one by Denise Fenzi? 
http://denisefenzi.com/2011/12/15/what-is-possible/

And I 100% agree. *I* am not good enough to be 100% force free 100% of the time, but I fully admit it is possible and I aim to get that good one day 

Unfortunately, the last time I said "the better trainer I become the less I need to correct" I got blasted LOL! Not many people want to hear that its our fault when we have to resort to force. 

I'm currently going through "crate games" with my "problem" child dog, and I can see how this is all going to come together. Susan Garrett is really a genius.

FWIW, the similarity between a shock collar and a squirt of water (if the dog doesn't like it) is that both operate on the same principle, an implied threat. You are basically saying to the dog "if you do X I will do something you dislike." A shock might be "worse" than a squirt of water, but the message to the dog is the same. You are essentially threatening the dog.

Is it the end of the world? Of course not. I know dogs who wear shock collars any time they leave the house and they don't appear any worse for the wear. They are happy, well-adjusted, play with other dogs etc. etc. To me that's beside the point though.

People can do whatever they want with their own dogs, but I personally am not okay with using threats as a way to achieve behaviors, and moreover, it isn't even necessary. (See SG's blog above.)


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

People are afraid of change, they do not like the unknown and often what they say does not work really equates to failure of correct application.

It is a bit like when people label dogs "_stubborn_" no, they are just unmotivated.

I always keep another of SGs phrases to the forefront of my mind.

_Whenever frustration sets in remind yourself that "YOUR DOG IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF YOUR ABILITIES AS A TRAINER". Only when you take ownership of your dog's shortcomings will you be able to turn them into attributes._

But it is human nature to blame others for our failings and easier to say "_my dogs is stubborn/naughty/spiteful_" than to actually admit we have insufficiently motivated our dogs.


----------



## Barryjparsons (Nov 27, 2011)

I have to say that video makes me feel like a complete failure towards my dog. It is incredibly impressive


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Barryjparsons said:


> I have to say that video makes me feel like a complete failure towards my dog. It is incredibly impressive


but it is only TRAINING, ANYONE can achieve this. I am sure you are not a complete failure, I suspect that you have not realised that such control is possible as nobody has demonstrated it, told you it or shown you how it can be accomplished.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> People are afraid of change, *they do not like the unknown* and often what they say does not work really equates to failure of correct application.


Oh I SO identify with this! I want to KNOW that if I continue on this path I really am going to have success, and if youve never been down that path before, how do you KNOW?! Its really a leap of faith to cross over, to change from the known to the unknown. I got 3 rally titles in 9 entries on one of my dogs, I have more control under distractions with ALL of my dogs than Ive ever had, and I still have moments of self-doubt!



smokeybear said:


> It is a bit like when people label dogs "_stubborn_" no, they are just unmotivated.


Yep. Blame the dog again. The DOG is stubborn, not that the owner is clueless about motivators.



smokeybear said:


> I always keep another of SGs phrases to the forefront of my mind.
> 
> _Whenever frustration sets in remind yourself that YOUR DOG IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF YOUR ABILITIES AS A TRAINER. Only when you take ownership of your dogs shortcomings will you be able to turn them into attributes._
> 
> But it is human nature to blame others for our failings and easier to say "_my dogs is stubborn/naughty/spiteful_" than to actually admit we have insufficiently motivated our dogs.


Exactly, taking ownership opens up a whole world of possibilities.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Ah Smokey, LOVE that blog post!
> Have you seen this one by Denise Fenzi?
> What is Possible? « Denise Fenzi
> 
> ...



It* was *necessary in my particular situation, which is why I did it.

When the methods that trainers and online experts suggest, do not work, then sometimes one has to try something else, in this case, a squirt of lukewarm water. I tried daily for months on end with other methods - they did not work. Thus I had to try something else.

If that is a 'threat', then so be it. Meanwhile I have a happy, friendly dog who still goes mad with joy when visitors arrive, but who no longer jumps up at them.

Telling a child that you will ground them if they break a rule is a 'threat' but I know many parents who do that.

I think it's also fair to say that all dogs are different, and respond to different methods. A tiny squirt of water is not terrible, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2012)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> A tiny squirt of water is not terrible, in my humble opinion.


I never said it was terrible, in fact I believe I have said it wasnt.

Youre repeatedly defending your actions. If youre okay with how you dealt with the situation, then you shouldnt feel the need to defend yourself to a bunch of strangers on the internet.

If youre not okay with how you dealt with it, there are a bunch of really educational, informative posts and links on this thread that can help you successfully do something different the next time.

I hope its clear that I am certainly not judging anyone on how they choose to deal with their dogs. Im simply trying to highlight out the alternate possibilities.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I never said it was terrible, in fact I believe I have said it wasnt.
> 
> Youre repeatedly defending your actions. If youre okay with how you dealt with the situation, then you shouldnt feel the need to defend yourself to a bunch of strangers on the internet.
> 
> ...



I'm not 'defending' anything, I was just responding directly to a comment made about 'threats' and what is and is not 'necessary'


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2012)

Those who say it cant be done should get out of the way of those doing it


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Oh I SO identify with this! I want to KNOW that if I continue on this path I really am going to have success, and if youve never been down that path before, how do you KNOW?! Its really a leap of faith to cross over, to change from the known to the unknown. I got 3 rally titles in 9 entries on one of my dogs, I have more control under distractions with ALL of my dogs than Ive ever had, and I still have moments of self-doubt!


Heh, it's doubly hard when you go down a path and end up with the worst behaved dog you've owned. The doubts are _huge_ and sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing the right thing using those same methods with another dog. Especially when I see all these people with their well behaved dogs who have been trained with the methods I used successfully with previous dogs.

But I don't want to train with pain and/or fear. Nor do I want my dog to look anxious and inhibited the way many dogs do. I love the willingness to try things, the happy grin and wagging tail when we're training, the eagerness to interact with me and all the other things I get.

And that video makes me feel like an absolute failure too! I have nowhere near that level of control with Spencer and right now I have doubts that I ever will!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Don&#8217;t permit fear of failure to prevent effort; we are all imperfect and will fail on occasion but fear of failure is the greatest failure of all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> Heh, it's doubly hard when you go down a path and end up with the worst behaved dog you've owned. The doubts are _huge_ and sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing the right thing using those same methods with another dog. Especially when I see all these people with their well behaved dogs who have been trained with the methods I used successfully with previous dogs.
> 
> But I don't want to train with pain and/or fear. Nor do I want my dog to look anxious and inhibited the way many dogs do. I love the willingness to try things, the happy grin and wagging tail when we're training, the eagerness to interact with me and all the other things I get.
> 
> And that video makes me feel like an absolute failure too! I have nowhere near that level of control with Spencer and right now I have doubts that I ever will!


The nice thing about Susan Garrett is that she is so good at explaining what she does and helping others achieve the same success as her. 
She is all about impulse control, impulse control, impulse control, and even as much as I believe in the importance of impulse control, I am STILL surprised at how something like crate games will spill over in to other supposedly unrelated areas.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Watching the clip & thinking about our walk today I realise just how much progress Roxy has made. 

We had sits to the whistle at distances today, even one when she had seen a grass snake (this was very reluctant but she still did it), I can recall her from her fave toys, get her to sit halfway to chasing her ball, tell her to 'leave it' just before she gets to her ball, etc

We have worked very hard on impulse control for whcih she gets big rewards. as well as the reactivity to other dogs I forget how well she is doing ..... until she sees a running animal then nothing is as exciting 

We continue to work on this & I imagine we still will be in years to come unfortunatelty


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> Heh, it's doubly hard when you go down a path and end up with the worst behaved dog you've owned. The doubts are _huge_ and sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing the right thing using those same methods with another dog. Especially when I see all these people with their well behaved dogs who have been trained with the methods I used successfully with previous dogs.
> 
> But I don't want to train with pain and/or fear. Nor do I want my dog to look anxious and inhibited the way many dogs do. I love the willingness to try things, the happy grin and wagging tail when we're training, the eagerness to interact with me and all the other things I get.
> 
> And that video makes me feel like an absolute failure too! I have nowhere near that level of control with Spencer and right now I have doubts that I ever will!


Hey, can I just say that I've been following your blog a lot in the last few months after I adopted Molly and I kept meaning to say how heartwarming it is and how helpful it's been. We've been suffering the teenage experience with Molly which is no surprise since she's been thrown into the pound, put on death row and then rescued and adopted by us in her tiny 10 month life. We were at our wits end a month into the adoption as her wilfulness was grinding us down. I picked up on your blog, I think from a web search, and it gave me faith. I much admired your honesty. We've since found a great trainer and have a much happier dog who I think is very similar to your Spencer! You and Spencer have helped us loads. Thank you.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

Yep water spray works a treat 










































































__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content







































































[/QUOTE]


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

Been reading (well skim-reading anyway) this thread with interest, as I've received feedback along the same lines as the majority here on water spray ... for a cat. Now I know cats well and I don't know dogs, so I'm very aware of how different their psychological make-up is and of the gulf of difference in what we're expecting from them. I hope my comment might be of some use, though.

Said cat was a kitten, and there were two things she did that were extremely dangerous to her. One was going towards the main road, the other playing with the flex of the iron while it was being used or left to cool so it could be put away. Both life-threatening behaviours that MUST be stopped immediately. So my first point is that this is completely different to unwanted behaviour like piddling on the floor or chewing the rug. 

The iron I dealt with by water spray. I did this because a cat's psychology means when it understands you don't want this behaviour it will comply when you're present but carry on the moment you turn your back. So use an aversion that is disconnected from you. One week and she left the iron cord alone. We were still vigilant of course but the critical situation was eased. 

The road I dealt with by shouting whenever she reached a precise point, which made her jump and run for the safety of the house. Risky, but worthwhile. For 12 years in that house, she never once went through the gate into the danger zone. Having long gardens our side of the road helped, of course! And a behaviourist I saw years later said she does the same with her own animals.

I know aversion training is frowned upon and I share that view for training and encouraging good behaviour. But I think in extreme cases of danger as quoted above, used very short term in a very controlled way and 100% consistently, only for absolute life-and-death situations, it can have its very small place. 

I do have one concern about distraction, and this applies to cats but I don't know if it will for dogs - animal does something you don't want it to do and is rewarded with the distraction. I don't understand how this will teach the animal not to do the unwanted behaviour? A cat's mind will make the connection that if I attack these wires my human will drop everything to get a toy out and play with me. I am genuinely interested in how I am wrong there, if anyone can explain this?

Again this is for cats not dogs but I do not use food as a reward. So far I have had six cats who don't go on work surfaces, 4 do not claw furniture (the other two are no longer with me and are not given any alternative), do not beg at the table, and do not wake me up at unsociable hours. All of this has been achieved gently with positive reward of affection, and no aversion other than as mentioned above for one kitten. Just in case anyone calls me old fashioned or cruel


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ForeverHome said:


> Again this is for cats not dogs but I do not use food as a reward. So far I have had six cats who don't go on work surfaces,
> 4 do not claw furniture (the other two are no longer with me and are not given any alternative), do not beg at the table,
> and do not wake me up at unsociable hours.


Everything U've listed are things they DON'T do, that U DON'T like.

What about the things they do that U DO like - teaching & encouraging behaviors U want?
- U can't punish an animal into "good" behavior.
- U can't teach a non-behavior; "not doing" is not a teachable behavior.

Look up the DEAD DOG LAW of behavior: 
_"Anything a Dead Dog can do is not a teachable behavior."_
Not barking? Dead dogs don't bark.
Not jumping? "
Not whining? "
Not, Not, Not... " " " "

What do U *want* them to do? ... Teach that.

As for using food to train cats - here's a selection of stoopid, un-trainable cats:
clicker training cats - YouTube

All doing unlikely, delightful things, with no aversives & no coercion. :thumbup1:
.
.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Look up the DEAD DOG LAW of behavior:
> _"Anything a Dead Dog can do is not a teachable behavior."_
> Not barking? Dead dogs don't bark.
> Not jumping? "
> ...


Could paraphrase that into The Stuffed Toy Law of behaviour.... lol


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ForeverHome said:


> I do have one concern about distraction, and this applies to cats but I don't know if it will for dogs - animal does something you don't want it to do and is rewarded with the distraction. I don't understand how this will teach the animal not to do the unwanted behaviour? A cat's mind will make the connection that if I attack these wires my human will drop everything to get a toy out and play with me. I am genuinely interested in how I am wrong there, if anyone can explain this?


You don't wait for the unwanted behaviour to occur and punish it, you pre-empt the unwanted behaviour occurring and give an appropriate alternative BEFORE it starts. Consistently distracting the dog (and presumably the cat) with something fun after it's started doing something you don't like will result in exactly what you say, I do this and fun happens.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> You don't wait for the unwanted behaviour to occur and punish it, you pre-empt the unwanted behaviour occurring and give an appropriate alternative BEFORE it starts. Consistently distracting the dog (and presumably the cat) with something fun after it's started doing something you don't like will result in exactly what you say, I do this and fun happens.


Obviously. it's a bit late when it's half way across the road on the iron is half way through the air. I'm sorry but waving a toy from across the room or garden once the animal has noticed the attraction of something dangerous is too late. An instant unpleasant experience, followed by recall and fun, does what needs to be done.

Preaching exclusively positive non-aversive training to the average person who doesn't know how to use it correctly is, in my experience, dangerous.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ForeverHome said:


> Obviously. it's a bit late when it's half way across the road on the iron is half way through the air. I'm sorry but waving a toy from across the room or garden once the animal has noticed the attraction of something dangerous is too late. An instant unpleasant experience, followed by recall and fun, does what needs to be done.
> 
> Preaching exclusively positive non-aversive training to the average person who doesn't know how to use it correctly is, in my experience, dangerous.


Obviously, which is exactly why I said you pre-empt the behaviour. In other words you don't let it start in the first place  I'm really not sure how on earth that is dangerous advice. If my dog were about to leap out in front of a car he'd be yanked back, that's not exactly a training situation is it?

Perhaps the cat world is very different to the dog world but I don't leave potentially life threatening objects such as hot irons lying around for my dog to interact with.

To be honest, your reply sounds like you don't have a full understanding of positive reinforcement based training. It is a lot more than simply waving toys from across the room.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> Obviously, which is exactly why I said you pre-empt the behaviour. In other words you don't let it start in the first place  I'm really not sure how on earth that is dangerous advice. If my dog were about to leap out in front of a car he'd be yanked back, that's not exactly a training situation is it?
> 
> Perhaps the cat world is very different to the dog world but I don't leave potentially life threatening objects such as hot irons lying around for my dog to interact with.
> 
> To be honest, your reply sounds like you don't have a full understanding of positive reinforcement based training. It is a lot more than simply waving toys from across the room.


I have to agree. Having a dog not only gives you something special, it also gives you a lot of responsibility. Having dogs the size of mine, I am always on the watch for things that might get us all in bother. See a little toddler or young child trotting along, I need to see it first, get them on their leads before they race up to say hello and scare the child of dogs for life. See a dog on a lead? Mine need to be on lead or at least going in the opposite direction before they decide to say hello to that dog, scaring the life out of it. It is a question of constant vigilance to prevent behaviours before they happen. My two have both liked to chase joggers in their time, only to play but the jogger doesn't know that. Last week a lady came past us jogging, I saw her before the dogs, called them over and made them sit while she went past, very gratefully.

You cannot afford to let it happen, then tell the dog afterwards no matter what method you use. He is a dog, he is going to react on instinct. It is up to you to get there first.


----------



## ForeverHome (Jan 14, 2014)

Sarah1983 said:


> Obviously, which is exactly why I said you pre-empt the behaviour. In other words you don't let it start in the first place  I'm really not sure how on earth that is dangerous advice. If my dog were about to leap out in front of a car he'd be yanked back, that's not exactly a training situation is it?
> 
> Perhaps the cat world is very different to the dog world but I don't leave potentially life threatening objects such as hot irons lying around for my dog to interact with.
> 
> To be honest, your reply sounds like you don't have a full understanding of positive reinforcement based training. It is a lot more than simply waving toys from across the room.


Well that is how some people interpret positive only training, I have seen this with my own eyes. At 6 months the dog was not even house trained, would not recall except for sausages, and chewed everything including visitors. Oh but it could roll over and look cute. That is why I say the advice is dangerous, because there are too many idiots who don't understand how to use it and their dogs, like example quoted, are completely out of control yet they think they are doing the right thing.

With a dog, you have the option to yank on its lead (I don't see the difference between that and a water spray by the way) which I don't have with a cat. It's an emergency situation and it needs immediate action to produce an instant response. But it should become a training situation, because the animal needs to learn not to do it, and not rely its whole life on you being there to pre-empt the behaviour just as it's about to occur.

Please don't try and make out I'm some kind of irresponsible moron who leaves hot irons lying around for animals to play with. A hot iron needs to cool before it can be put away. I am in the room the whole time but I am teaching the cat not to play with it in the first place, so that if just once another emergency happened elsewhere in the house I could respond immediately and the cat would not think this was a great time to play with it.

I have no doubt positive methods work and work very well. All I'm saying is that there is a limited place for other methods where the situation demands it, which is still training. And that positive methods in the wrong hands mean the animal is not being taught the basics and therefore saying there is no place for a water spray is potentially dangerous.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I didn't make you out to be an irresponsible moron, you're the one who brought up the hot iron. And I'm well aware they need to cool before being put away, ours cools in a separate room to the dog because even with supervision it's all too easy for accidents to happen and the iron to be knocked over.

If suggesting this method or that method is dangerous then where do we draw the line? A water spray is potentially extremely dangerous as some dogs will react with aggression towards it. My collie developed a fear of ALL sprays after being sprayed with water. And his reaction to them was to go at them with his teeth. Every method is open to interpretation, it's not the method at fault but peoples lack of proper understanding. 

There is a hell of a difference between simply responding to an emergency situation and training imo. My dog unexpectedly lunging out in front of a car would be an emergency situation and damn right I'd yank him back. Not to teach him anything but to stop him being seriously hurt. Actually training him to stop automatically at roads or to respond to a stop cue would not be done via yanking or spraying with water or whatever.


----------



## Kirstyrebe (Jan 20, 2014)

I don't know a huge deal on training, but I think I'm doing a good job so far lol, I know dogs are different to children but I would never spray my kids for biting(as every child goes through it) or doing bad behaviour around the house, so I would never do this to my dog, if he's chewing something he shouldn't I would remove him from the situation and pass him a chew toy, I have also sprayed chew deterrent which works most of the time


----------



## catpud (Nov 9, 2013)

When it comes to using aversive methods to teach a dog what not to do it has the potential to go very wrong. 

For example, the dog is sprayed to stop it crossing a road - as well as the road there are cars, a bike, children on the opposite side, and a man with a big hat walking towards you. 

You know that you are spraying the dog to tell it "this is what happens when you try to run across the road" - but the dog could think "oh gosh when those children are around I am going to get sprayed in the face with that scary thing" 

And so you now have a dog that is frightened of children, because the sight of them is paired with the spray in the dogs mind (despite the fact that you did not intend it to pair those two things together), some dogs may choose to then avoid the children, but in the worst case scenario the dog will choose to show aggression to make the children go away. A very dangerous situation I am sure you will agree. 

You can replace "road" "spray" and "children" with any number of objects, things and places. The point I am making is that it is far to easy for a dog to misunderstand what it is being punished for and is in my mind a dangerous way of training. 

Far easier and safer to prevent the behaviour from occurring in the first place and to ensure that you have trained solid commands such as leave it, drop and stay so that you can control your dog in potentially dangerous situations without resorting to shocking it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> ...which is exactly why I said you pre-empt the behaviour. IOW don't let it start in the first place.
> 
> I'm really not sure how on earth that's dangerous advice. If my dog were about to leap out in front of a car,
> he'd be yanked back --- that's not exactly a training situation, is it?
> ...


the B-I-G difference between cat-owning culture & dog-owning culture?...

*Cat-owners still believe that cats are entitled to roam at large; dog-owners have largely outgrown this 
juvenile idea of entitlement & "freedom" - free-roaming means free to pee, stool, spray, hunt, fight, harass, 
assault strangers, breed at will, chase / puncture / kill wildlife, GET chased / punctured killed BY wildlife, 
& so on.* Amazingly, more & more cat-owners in the USA are less entranced with free-roaming "rights" 
as coyotes continue to extend their range in the Eastern-USA, which i think is all to the good.

Good fences make good neighbors; boundaries are healthy, IMO & IME.

If *ForeverHome*'s cat actually was "forever at home", IOW on the owner's property, inside her / his 
garden & confined by a safe cat-proof fence, there'd be zero worry about the cat being run-over by 
a passing car - unless, of course, the car broke thru the fence & drove into the garden / yard.

The odds of that catastrophe are much-lower than the odds of a cat crossing a street when they are
deliberately permitted to roam at large; keep cats as indoor-only pets, or confine them to the owner's
property with cat-proof fence, or use screen-rooms or other no-contact options to allow cats to go
outside without crossing streets, fighting other cats, being injured in fights with cats or wildlife, spraying
all over the neighborhood, etc, *eliminates* the HBC / *H*it *B*y *C*ar threat.

But that's probly too simplistic.  I'm just a judgmental, narrow-minded b*tch, wondering why
cat-owners are so doggone SLOW to perceive the obvious: we don't all live in rural cottages, anymore.
Urban & suburban landscapes are not safe or friendly places for free-roaming pets - for that matter,
the rural landscape i grew-up in, a small family-farm a 1/4-mile from the nearest house, 2-miles from
the village on a dirt road, wasn't FRIENDLY to free-roaming pets; my farming neighbors shot roaming dogs
& cats without so much as looking for a collar or tags, & skunks, porcupines, foxes, bobcat, & raccoons
were happy to rip the be-jaysus out of any pet they met.

Somehow i'm not supposed to *notice* let alone *comment on* the number of cats on PF-uk who are killed, 
injured, wounded in cat-fights, pick-up contagious diseases, are attacked by a fox or off-leash dog, 
*H*it *B*y *C*ars, shot with BB-guns or bullets or paint-guns, harassed or tortured by malicious persons, etc.

I'm supposed to be non-judgmental, blind as an eyeless cave-shrimp, & only offer _my deepest sympathy..._ 
to the eejits who are the root-cause of their "beloved pet's" hurt & fright: the owner who allows the cat 
out the door. :thumbdown:

Personally, my sorrow is mostly for the cat - not the owner. The cat acts within their own instinct;
the owner defies the logic of keeping their pet safe, then weeps & moans when Kitty pays the price.
:nonod: Why send a sympathy-card to a parent who encourages their kid to play chicken in the street
with passing traffic?... The kid gets hurt, well --- that was pretty predictable, wasn't it?

Responsible parenting & responsible PET-parenting mean limiting the risk to the dependent child or pet.
Free-roaming isn't "responsible" by any stretch of the imagination, & it's remarkably callous to the needs
of native wildlife & migratory birds, who DON't need well-fed pets chasing, puncturing, & killing them - 
directly & immediately, or via massive infections within 5 to 7-days after the scratch or fang-puncture.

Like it or lump it, cat-owners need to grow-up & safely confine their pets to their OWN property.
I don't want to host any more "cat sh*t" gardens, thanks, nor pick up a dozen adult birds' heads in a 3-week
period, just in MY yard / garden. It's disgusting, it's rude, & it's stoopid. :skep: Don't expect an award for being 
so "aware of my cat's needs" - playing with a flirt-pole is a lot more "aware" than just opening a doggone door 
& waving bye-bye, IMO & IME.

As for training cats, i've taught a dozen or more cats of all ages & breeds to play fetch, come when called,
sit on cue, sit-up, roll over, allow claw-trims & combing, jump into my arms, & more - all on cue, without
any water-pistols, throw-chains, smacking or scolding, etc.

I use _shock!, horror, gasp..._ *Food* to lure & reward, & an audible marker to tell the cat,
"yes!, that's the very thing i want!..." And it works. Easily, reliably, & both of us enjoy it. :yesnod:

U cat-owners should try it. I think U'd be amazed. :thumbup1:
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ForeverHome said:


> Please don't try [to] make [me] some kind of irresponsible moron who leaves hot irons lying around,
> for animals to play with. A hot iron needs to cool before it can be put away. I'm in the room the whole time...


Hmm. Where have i put hot-irons to safely cool, where neither CHILDREN nor PETS can mess with them?...

- in the empty oven, on a sheet of clean parchment or brand-new foil to prevent any grease or
any food particles getting on the clean face of the iron.

- On a clean cookie-sheet on top of the [empty] stove.

- On a clean cookie-sheet or trivet, on the flat kitchen-table or counter.

- Inside the empty microwave, with the cord loosely wound into the iron's handle.

- Move the ironing-board into an empty room nearby, park the iron on the board, & CLOSE THE DOOR.

All easy, all safe; no cords chewed, no-one burnt, no-one has the iron fall on their heads, etc, etc.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> Perhaps the cat world is very different to the dog world but I don't leave potentially life threatening objects such as hot irons lying around for my dog to interact with.


I had cats for over 20 years, in the days when I wasn't able to have a dog. They were indoor cats - and you quickly get used to not leaving potentially harmful objects around, which includes on kitchen counters as of course, cats can jump up.

They also will thieve if the opportunity presents itself, so food was always in the fridge, in a closed cupboard, or in the microwave [which some cat-owning friends of mine always referred to as the Meat Safe!].


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

My two are indoor cats, but are actually quite well behaved when it comes to food on counters etc. They are fussy so don't bother going near human food. With the exception of sugary milk in a cereal bowl and butter :lol: There was some stuff though, such as putting pans of water on the hob after using it, I had to learn the hard way, after poor Max burnt his paw pad jumping on the cooker after I'd used it! And I'm always super careful where I put my hair straighteners, although that's partly because I sat on them in the buff years ago and couldn't sit down without pain for two weeks! 

Spraying Daisy would be pointless as she loves water, I always splash water at her when I'm in the shower and she's sitting watching (which is less creepy than it sounds), she loves it! She sticks her face right in the bath sometimes, weird creature.


----------



## Debbierobb109 (Mar 23, 2013)

Spraying your dog or using cans with coins are really bad ideas - National dog training | Examiner.com

spraying the dog with water acts in the same way as smacking, shocking, shouting etc..it interrupts the behaviour, but it doesnt fix the problem....all you have done is interrupted what the dog has done, and probably scared the dog too...great!! if you want a dog to stop doing a certain behaviour you nee dto give the dog an alternative behaviour.
why use a punishment when there are much kinder more positive, longer lasting ways to correct him?? your dog is already scared, reactive etc and you are only adding to the problem by giving him an extra thing to be scared of
i suggest you go and find a force free positive reinforcement behaviourist to help you. 
using punishment is a quick fix for lazy owners. just because it look slike it is working doesnt mean that it is good in the long run.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I used to have a living flame gas fire and every time I left the room, even to go to the loo, I switched it off and waited for the flame to vanish before I would leave it. Then one day while I was in the room, Ferdie got too close and his tail went up in flames. Good thing I was in the room really; I burnt my hands putting the fire out, but he didn't seem to notice! It got his fur, did not have time to reach his flesh. That was the last time I used my lovely fire.

If I happened to be ironing and needing to leave the room, the iron came with me. You wouldn't leave near a young child, don't leave it near a pet.

When I got Diva, because she had never lived in a house, her previous owner made a point of telling me I would have to watch her with hot things because she wouldn't know the danger. I told her she wouldn't know the danger because she is a dog, not because she has never lived in a house. I wouldn't trust any animal with something like that, no matter how well trained.


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

I can tell you first hand about the fallout of spraying water as punishment on a nervous dog.

Tummel was 6 weeks old when he went to his first home, they used the water spray as punishment on him...I got him at 10 weeks old.

He wouldn't drink from a bowl of water, I had to soak his food, for roughly 2 months!

When out he would struggle to walk around puddles, I had to pick him up and walk round a few! Took about. 5/6 weeks to fix and he still won't go through them at almost 4

If he so much as heard running water he'd collapse on the floor and start crying, same with waves, he refused completely to get in water of any kind until he was around 6/7 months old and still won't swim or go deeper than the bottom of his chest.

Even now if I hold up a squirty bottle (I have reptiles so have one for misting) he hits the ground and runs away...

Oh yes...squirting water on a nervous dog really helps stop unwanted behaviours....Tummels almost 4 and I'm still dealing with these reactions!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ironing? What's that? Just put the iron in the bin (once it's cooled down of course), problem solved.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Hmm. So you frighten your dog off doing things? Nice! 
Personally I find it a lot easier to train alternative behaviours - thereby increasing the dogs` confidence and improving his general behaviour.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Do we really have to have the age old digs about us careless, irresponsible owners letting their poor cats outside to the dangers of the real world yet again ....

If i were to make the same statements about indoor only cats not getting a good quality of life, never experiencing the joys of being out in the sun, chasing a mouse, cimbing a tree, etc I would be shot down in flames


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> Do we really have to have the age old digs about us careless, irresponsible owners letting their poor cats outside to the dangers of the real world yet again ....
> 
> If i were to make the same statements about indoor only cats not getting a good quality of life, never experiencing the joys of being out in the sun, chasing a mouse, cimbing a tree, etc I would be shot down in flames


Have to agree, Cleo. I do not believe in keeping cats indoors unless they choose to stay indoors. Some do, will never go out, but that is their choice. But L4L was speaking as an American where there are a lot of predators out there. We don't have to worry about coyotes in Norfolk, do we?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Elles said:


> Ironing? What's that? Just put the iron in the bin (once it's cooled down of course), problem solved.


I take my doctors advice not to iron very seriously  Hubby has to iron his uniform though.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> ...L4L was speaking as an American where there are a lot of predators out there.
> We don't have to worry about coyotes in Norfolk, do we?


No - no coyotes in Norfolk, but if it's anything like London, there are foxes.
And in any case, anywhere there's the pestilential cockroach-race of humans,
there are automobiles.
Autos love to eat cats for snacks.

Then there are nasty ppl with antifreeze & opened tins of fish.
And other cats, also at large, happy to perforate Ur little darling.
And children, with peashooters or B-B guns, or slingshots & pebbles.
And of course, off-leash dogs, who'd cheerfully grab Fluffy by the neck & shake that body like a rag,
or turn Fluffy into a tug-toy & rip one half from the other...

Then there are the dear neighbors, who despise Fluffy for spraying all over the garden & sometimes
the shrub by the entry door, to boot. They despise Fluffy's owner, for keeping the bugger, but are too polite
to say so. However, despite their well-bred politeness, they'd gladly throttle Fluffy if it weren't that killing
the rotten little beast would make such a bad impression on their neighbor, the owner of that evil little beast.

Sooner or later, a car will squash Fluffy, or not; or Fluffy will drink from an antifreeze-laced puddle,
act slightly wobbly for a few hours, & then be fine... only to die a day or two, later. Fluffy's owner
will post the sad news on PF-uk, & everyone will offer their condolences... & then Fluffy's sad owner
will get another kitten, & do it all again.

Everything on television is a rerun - have U noticed that? :nonod:
.
.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> No - no coyotes in Norfolk, but if it's anything like London, there are foxes.
> And in any case, anywhere there's the pestilential cockroach-race of humans,
> there are automobiles.
> Autos love to eat cats for snacks.
> ...


Sorry, Terry but we will have to disagree on this one. I have owned 7 cats over the years and none have met with any of the tragic ends you describe. One lived to be 17 1/2 and died from a stroke, one lived to be 16 and died of thyroid deficiencies having been treated for 2 years. The others all died from various illnesses at a ripe old age except one - Clyde - who we sadly lost at only four months when he fell from a tree in my own garden and landed on his stomach.

I am not against cat proofing the whole garden so that they can get outside, but in my case all the trees will have to go as well, but keeping a cat inside is not how I choose to keep a cat. I kept my present cat in for two weeks when she first came to live with me, as she was two years old then and I thought she might run off. By the end of that two weeks, she was so wild she tore my arm apart in an attempt to escape. That is definitely not a happy pussy cat.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Sorry, Terry but we will have to disagree on this one. I have owned 7 cats over the years and none have met with any of the tragic ends you describe. One lived to be 17 1/2 and died from a stroke, one lived to be 16 and died of thyroid deficiencies having been treated for 2 years. The others all died from various illnesses at a ripe old age except one - Clyde - who we sadly lost at only four months when he fell from a tree in my own garden and landed on his stomach.
> 
> I am not against cat proofing the whole garden so that they can get outside, but in my case all the trees will have to go as well, but keeping a cat inside is not how I choose to keep a cat. I kept my present cat in for two weeks when she first came to live with me, as she was two years old then and I thought she might run off. By the end of that two weeks, she was so wild she tore my arm apart in an attempt to escape. That is definitely not a happy pussy cat.


Completely agree, I have owned cats since I was a child & the only one that died young was an indoor only cat.

My latest cat (George) was initally a stray around an Aarea inj Perterborough for 2yrs before he was takne to a local vets with an infected ear. there is no way I could keep him indoor only as he loves going out, climbing trees, catching mice & rats, etc.

We live in the countryside & there are foxes but then they don't seem to come near the garden becasue of the dogs & tbh I think George would be more than a match for a fox!

There are dangers in all walks of life & we all make choices based on what we believe is best for our pets & in my case it suits my cats to be able to go outside.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Well, all i can say is, U two have been lucky.

I can search for injured / ill / HBC cats here on PF-uk & find a large number, attacked by dogs, killed by dogs,
hit by cars [HBC] & with fractures or other injuries, HBC & dead, sick with contagious diseases, etc.
It happens here all the time - & their owners post, looking for sympathy. :yikes: Sorry, my sympathy
is with their CATS, not with the owners, who basically put Kitty in charge of her or his own feline-safety.

I don't think that's appropriate, any more than putting a dog in charge of their own safety is apropos.

*My personal experience* is on both ends of the spectrum:
as a cat-owner with roaming cats [childhood], & as a cat-owner with indoor-only cats [adulthood],
PLUS as a resident invaded by roaming OWNED cats - which was a real PITA, & i'd never suggest it as
a lifestyle choice if U want to be in the good graces of one's neighbors.

As a child on our family-farm, "our" cats were all either Siamese [indoors] or farm-cats [outdoors],
all descended from one female kitten abandoned at about 6-WO - Smokey, who was mine, PLUS 
a changing popn of free-roaming cats who were adults, surviving on their wits, who had been born
on neighboring farms, but were not FED nor cared-for by the owners of those farms.

The death toll:
- Figaro: female kitten, born in Smokey's first litter of 4 in late May, dead in February - killed by the 2
crossbred dogs owned by our nearest neighbor, they caught her in deep new snow & pulled her apart,
ripping her rear leg off as i watched, horrified, from the porch 10-ft away.

- Cosmo: male kitten, Figgy's brother; as an intact 3-YO, he was extremely aggro; when i was 10-YO,
i sat down with him on that same porch & explained that he couldn't stay anymore, he was too rough.
He'd been ripping H*** out of my legs if he came & wound round my legs to demand petting, *& i stopped
too soon.* I was tired of bleeding - i told him he could come back if he needed to, if he was hungry
or sick or hurt, but he couldn't stay. Next morning he was gone - he returned once, about 18-mos later, after
he'd been in a terrible fight, & let me treat his many wounds. He stayed 10-days, left, & was never seen again.

- Jet: female kitten, hit by car, 6-MO.

- Rain: the only grey kitten, F; killed by a strange tomcat, ~4-MO, possibly in her first-heat.

Those cats killed everything they could get their paws on, adult & infant rabbits, fledgling & nestling
birds, small herps of all kinds, large insects, salamanders, chipmunks, shrews, squirrels, U name it.
They were massively destructive; i begged my parents to desex them, but couldn't convince them to spend
the money, nor would they bring the cats INSIDE - that was for the Siamese.

Pretty: 1st Siamese my sire bought; died at 19-YO, indoor only.

Beauty: from Pretty's 1st-litter; died at 21-YO, indoor only.

Cocoa: the Siamese my elder-sis bought as a 6-WO kitten from a Philthy breeder; major issues
due to too-early separation, very needy. ESCAPED REPEATEDLY to be bred, always by the same $#*@! tom,
a brown tabby that i never saw, but she obviously had his address; she once jumped THRU THE SCREEN
of a 2nd story window to go meet him.
Died at 5-YO, killed by the same 2 dogs who killed Figgy.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Me & most of my friends who have outdoor cats have been 'lucky' then 

For me, it will always depend on the cat & whether or not s/he chooses to go out. 

Life is full of risks, accidents will happen & there will always be dangers. How many posts have I read about cats trying to chew electrical cables - big danger! I could argue that maybe if they were able to go out they wouldn't do this.

I have heard of dogs being attacked by other dogs when out, occasionally being killed by them, but we don't keep our dogs indoors.

IMO nothing is risk free & I will weigh up the pros & cons then make my decision based on what I feel is best for my pet


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> Life is full of risks, accidents will happen & there will always be dangers.


yes - 
& *we limit the risks, when we can - * as see below.


Cleo38 said:


> I've heard of dogs being attacked by other dogs when out, occasionally being killed by them,
> but we don't keep our dogs indoors.


No - but *we DO keep dogs on leash, if we're responsible owners, & when they're OFF leash,
we're there to supervise - they aren't flitting around the landscape at will. *

We don't turn our horses loose to wander at will - they're contained by fences.
We don't leave pet-birds at liberty, unless they're native species.
*Every domestic species we keep as a pet, is contained & /or supervised. Only cats get a 'pass'.

Cats aren't brilliant thinkers, can't outrun a passing car, & can't out-fight most dogs.
Contagious disease isn't a respecter of persons, & cats catch FIP, FLV, & FIV from other cats.

The single most-common result of roaming cats for the cats is traumatic injuries.

The single most-common result of roaming cats for the community is neighbor complaints,
cat-s*it & urine all over, & for the non-humans, dead wildlife.

Wildlife have a right to a life, too. Cats aren't a privileged species; it's not OK for cats to kill native
birds of all ages, insects, reptiles, small mammals, amphibians, etc, etc - cats don't KILL TO EAT,
well-fed cats kill for amusement, & smaller animals die miserable, needless deaths because Fluffy
"likes to go outside", & Fluffy's owner allows that. It's a choice.

U cannot claim to "appreciate native wildlife", & let Ur cat roam. It's oxymoronic behavior - the two
things aren't compatible, as the cat isn't going to simply admire the local native species. S/he's gonna
pounce on anything that passes close enuf, or that's unable to flee - such as turtle eggs, nestlings, bunnies
still in the nest, fledglings who aren't on their wings yet, & other easy targets.*

After 7-years as a volunteer on the wildlife hotline for _*Wildlife Response, Inc.*_ in VA,
i quit - i was frankly sick & tired of seeing the nonstop, year-round, endless damage done BY CATS.
Year in & year out, *75%* of our intake was cat-victims; twice a year,
during spring fledgling-season & fall small-mammal season, it spiked to *90%* of intake.

I was tired of talking to cat-owners just like U, who didn't give a dam* that the healthy fledgling those
parent birds had wasted 2-months incubating, feeding, protecting & teaching was now sick from infection,
& not flying free, but in the care of a rehabber who was feeding the bird & dosing them with antibiotics 
to save them from a lingering, ugly, massive infection.
It got old - & i gave up.

I don't hate cats; but i can't forgive the owners of free-roaming cats, & i make no bones about it.
Them's the facts. Cats kill, directly & immediately, & slowly & painfully - & their owners are enablers.
Watching an animal die of overwhelming infection, unable to feed themselves, seek shelter,
find water, or even stand-up, is incredibly depressing. Literally millions of wildlings die every year,
at the teeth or claws of OWNED "pet" cats. It's unforgivable.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Anyhoo, back on topic.

A neighbour had several labs over the years and sprayed every one of them when they barked.

They barked almost constantly at almost everything, when in the garden. Even immediately after being squirted, and while the owner was standing next to them, still holding the bottle.

I deduce from this - IT DID NOT WORK!

They never learned not to bark. They just got squirted when they did.

In the summer, I suspect they enjoyed it :


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> yes -
> & *we limit the risks, when we can - * as see below.
> 
> No - but *we DO keep dogs on leash, if we're responsible owners, & when they're OFF leash,
> ...


But ... I have read many studies (UK) about cats & wildlife & tbh there have been no conclusive evidence. Who is to say that the 'wildlife' that was caught was not already ill, injured & therefore easy to catch, dead already .....

One of my cats caught a bird recently, a poor zebra finch that was far too friendly (maybe an escapee from an aviary) & came in to the house. Apart from that they don't bother with birds as they are far more interested in the numerous mice & (unfortunately) rats we have.

To deny my cat access to the outside world (who was previously a stray & therefore used to being outside) is cruel. I live in the countryside with 2 neighbours & lots of open fields, perfect for both cats

As I say, there are risks in life all the time. Having a great life isn't always about being safe


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I've read many studies (UK) about cats & wildlife, & TBH, there's been no conclusive evidence.


http://www.kittycams.uga.edu/other/Loyd et al 2013.pdf
Biological Conservation 160 (2013) 183189
[PDF] 
Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using ... 
- Kitty Cams
University of Georgia
by KAT Loyd - ‎2013 
_We investigated hunting of wildlife by owned, free-roaming cats in a suburban area ... 
Our results suggest that previous studies of pet cat predation on wild- .... _Mammals. Birds. Reptiles. Invertebrates. Amphibians. 
Baker et al. (2008). UK. 75.

http://wildlife.org/documents/policy/Critical.Assessment.Feral.Cats.Longcore.pdf
[PDF] Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats ...
The Wildlife Society
by T LONGCORE - ‎2009
_a role to play by conducting additional research on the effects of feral cats on .... 
roaming cats on birds and other wildlife._ ... Bristol, United Kingdom; Baker et al.

January 2013:
Killer cats: deadly pets murder nearly 4 billion birds a year - Telegraph
Killer cats: deadly pets murder nearly 4 billion birds a year - Telegraph‎
The Daily Telegraph
Jan 30, 2013 - 
_The study is the first to compile and systematically analyse rates of ... Despite mounting evidence that free-roaming cats are exacting a ... _

Sept-2012:
Study Finds Free-Roaming Cats Pose Threat from Serious Public Health Diseases
Study Finds Free-Roaming Cats Pose Threat from Serious Public ...
Sep 19, 2012 - 
_Study Finds Free-Roaming Cats Pose Threat from "Serious Public Health Diseases" ... _
Blog, Conservation · Tagged: american bird conservancy, feral cats, TNR ...

Jan-2013:
Hello Kitty! Please Don
Hello Kitty! Please Don't Kill Me! - National Geographic News
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../130129-pets-ca...‎
National Geographic
Jan 29, 2013 - 
_A new study reveals that cats prey on billions of birds and mammals every year. ... 
The authors found that the stray and feral cats are responsible for most... _

Keep rationalizing. The evidence has been available for decades.
Denial is a big river, but it can't sweep away the facts.

That a given cat never trophies anything [doesn't bring home live or dead prey] is NOT proof that
this particular cat isn't catching & killing wildlife; MALE cats are less likely than FEMALES to trophy,
& females who've never had a litter are less-likely than females who have raised at least one.

Ergo, spayed Fs who've never reared a litter & most males don't bother bringing home their "toys",
alive, dead, or in-between. The most-likely cats to bring home "gifts" are Fs who've reared a minimum
of one litter, but even they aren't GUARANTEED to fetch home their "playmates".

Ur cats may not get killed - but they kill lots of other critters; however, for most cat-owners who leave
their little darlings roam, the dead wildlife really don't matter, as long as Fluffy is happy, roaming.

:shocked: It's good to have one's priorities in order.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Anyhoo, back on topic, again 

I could have done with a water pistol to "shoot" the lab that came bounding over to Jack this morning 

Would have loved to have squirted the bl**dy useless owner too


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE,
from http://www.kittycams.uga.edu/other/Loyd et al 2013.pdf

Knowing as i do how amazingly lazy cat-owners are, & their prevailing philosophy of,
_"Don't confuse me with the facts",_ here are a few of those inconvenient facts,
presented for the perusal of those not too lazy to read - & the other interested parties, who are
actually concerned for wildlife & / or cats.


> _Given the significance to wildlife conservation & the current problematic evidence, domestic cat predation
> necessitates research using improved methods to reduce error and accurately represent the hunting behavior
> of free-roaming cats. Baker et al. (2008) stressed the need to validate current estimates of predation
> by prey returns through new methods in future investigations. Woods et al. (2003) and Baker et al. (2005) suggested
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Georgia is nothing like anywhere in the UK.  They did the cat cams in the UK too, there was a tv programme Horizon - the secret life of the cat. Uk cats are fat and lazy and don't go very far, they aren't american cats.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Back on topic.

Living in the South West of the uk, neither I nor my dog would even notice being sprayed by a water pistol atm. 

The heavens keep throwing buckets of water at us.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

2010 - 2011 study, as above



> _*3. Results*
> We collected 7  10 days of footage from 55 of our 60 cats & included these 55 in our video analyses. The remaining
> five collected very little or no video due to various factors, including two not tolerating the collar, & lack of effort by
> cat owners. We had an average of 38 ± 16 h of outdoor footage per roaming cat (Range 1882 h). 30 participants were male,
> ...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

To Alfie a spray is a negative but to Muddy a water spray is very much a positive. Far far better than a treat or any other toy


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> Georgia is nothing like anywhere in the UK.


oh, of course, dear - the UK is an entirely-different *planet...* 


Elles said:


> ... UK cats are fat & lazy and don't go very far: they aren't American cats.


i figured there'd be a huge outcry about how "OUR cats don't kill birds [or lizards, or small mammals,
or whatever]", & ..."OUR cats don't roam far from home at all..."  So thoughtfully, there are UK
studies - LOTS of them, with Brit-owners & Brit-cats & Brit-native species being killed.

Millions of FULL-text studies are available *free* with an account at ResearchGate.
Do sign up - it's worth the minor effort.

Urban bird declines and the fear of cats - ResearchGate


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> oh, of course, dear - the UK is an entirely-different *planet...*


Respectfully, Terry, it might as well be when compared to the USA 

The density of our wildlife is far less for a start.... fewer species, and fewer in number as in population. As a small island, we've managed to persecute so many of our native animals into extinction or diminishment in one way or another, due to loss of habitat or other means; we are wildlife-poor in comparison to the US. There just isn't the diversity or amount of "game" for cats to plunder here.

I would say that wild rats probably have more impact on our bird and small animal numbers than cats. And we have plenty of those. They have been caught on camera taking wild bird nestlings - they will also eat eggs, and the cam climb into places a cat could only dream of reaching.

Hedgehogs have declined by 70% in the last two decades - and that's one native animal cats can't influence.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)




----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)




----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So I can gather from your British link that British cats probably don't kill very many birds, they're too lazy and well fed, but there aren't as many birds as there used to be in Britain and that might be because they're scared of all the cats.

Nothing to do with extreme changes in weather conditions, global warming, or humans building on, or destroying their habitats or anything like that, the disputed hypotheses is that they're too scared of all the cats to settle down and breed.

Well cats are very scary.

[youtube_browser]h6CcxJQq1x8[/youtube_browser]



And yes, the UK is a completely different planet to the US, you don't even speak the same language. :ciappa:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)




----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)




----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> ... the disputed hypotheses is that they're too scared of all the cats to settle down and breed.


Umm, not exactly.

There ARE "lethal effects" to multiple species; JUST LIKE cats everywhere else on the globe, cats in the UK
kill herps, amphibians, large insects & other invertebrates, small mammals, *and birds.*

THIS *particular study* is solely regarding _sub-lethal effects_, which are not as U patronizingly express it,
"being too scared to breed". :nonod:

I don't know if U paid any attention whatever to the DENSITY of cats / sq-km, which is the densest popn
of meso-predators in the world - "meso" meaning 'middle-sized', as opposed to apex [wolf, puma, tiger,
lion, etc] or small predators, such as shrews up to sparrow hawks & peregrine falcons, etc.

The *density* is part & parcel of the problem: cats constantly disturb prey species,
leading to such direct consequences as MALNUTRITION & stunting of bird nestlings' & fledglings growth.

I'm sure U can stop tittering long-enuf to understand that there's a genuine issue to be considered -
or perhaps not, but a density of mid-sized predators means incessant interruptions of a bird's ability
to forage & feed THEMSELVES, let alone feed their [highly-demanding, rapid metabolism, fast-growing] 
young has a very real effect - among other "sub-lethal" FX, which if U read the study, are described.

I mention the stunted growth of nestlings & fledglings due to the constant interruptions as that's an easy
illustrative example: birds foraging can only spend X time over Y area to get Z amount of food, for their
fast-growing infants, who eat every 5 to 10-minutes from sun-up to dark, every day, & excrete avery 15 to
20-minutes over the same period. Parent birds run themselves ragged trying to feed themselves, PLUS gather
sufficient high-quality, high-protein, high-fat foods for their broods. It's bloody hard work - if U have never
REARED a baby-bird & released one, U have no idea just how intensive the feeding process is; it literally eats
one's life, as the chicks are either eating, or being cleaned after a meal / evacuating, all day & all evening.

5 to 6-AM until 8 to 9-PM is the feeding schedule for parent birds, every day of the week; they have between
4 & 8 chicks per brood, & some will rear 2 or even 3 broods per season - but the average loss of chicks is between 
60% & 80% before chicks fledge, & an additional 10 to 20% over the chicks' first YEAR. That means that recruitment 
[year-old birds who might breed the following spring] is ONLY 10 to 20% of all the chicks that hatch.

To put this in human-terms, U'd have to have at least 10 kids to have ONE surviving post-puberty child.
To replace both parents, U'd have at least 15 & preferably 20 kids, & even then, there'd be no assurance
that U wouldn't lose those children before they had children of their own. See what i mean?

I'm deliberately not counting infertile or broken eggs [DDT / thin shells, novice parents / rough turning,
or other confounding factors] - i'm only counting hatched chicks, & mortality until fledging, followed by the
added mortality of the chicks' first 12-mos [from 3 to 4-MO thru the following spring].

Recruitment is low, loss high, & birds can't afford the added factor of cats.
ONE THIRD of all songbirds globally are considered to be at risk, today -
that's 33% of all songbirds, world-wide - due *only* to climate-change.
That ignores all other risk-factors: human predation, window-strikes, HBC, habitat loss, drought / fire
or any other weather-related disasters [flood, etc], plant or insect diseases, etc, OR CATS.
That's climate-instability effects only.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Actually, from your links, the research is inconclusive. The biggest threat to birds and anything else is us worldwide not cats being let outside in the UK. There are literally billions of feral cats worldwide. Cats doing their own thing all over Europe, Asia etc. Preaching from the US to the UK about our habits of allowing our pet cats access to the outdoors is p*ssing in the wind and given the kind of treatment that's acceptable in the US, such as declawing, ear cropping, docking etc. we might think it's a bit of a cheek someone from there telling us how to look after our cats, when if we do let them out, we let them out for their benefit not ours. 

I would expect every cat owner in the UK already knows the risks and make their own decisions. Do you think we're too stupid to realise that an outside cat is at risk of being run over by a car if we live in a busy street? Some people think it's worth the risk and some don't. So some have indoor cats and some don't. They can discuss the pros and cons on the cat forum. 

I doubt from reading your links any single person in the UK will change their mind and keep their cat indoors, maybe I'm wrong. imo someone is more likely to change what they do fearing for their cat's life not the life of a sparrow. Or if there is a change in law instructing everyone to keep their cats indoors and the chance of prosecution if you let them out.

Not going to happen in my lifetime and no point trying to preach about it on the dog forum really. 

No I haven't nursed a bird and I've never owned a cat either. I wouldn't want a pet I'd have to let outside and worry about and they're too independent for me, I prefer dogs and horses. I'd only own a cat if I ever managed to get my own yard (barn in the US) to keep my horses and I wanted a cat or two to keep the mouse population down, in which case I'd probably adopt a couple of ferals from rescue and they'd live outside.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I believe that far greater risk to songbirds in the uk is the explosion in the grey squirrel population. Having said that, the increase in felines cannot be ruled out as an issue.

However I do feel that a large proportion of cat owners in the UK do all they can to alleviate the problem.

The huge increase in birds of prey would frighten them far more than a land locked creature


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Living the SW of the UK I wouldn't want to discount wind farms either.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> Living the SW of the UK I wouldn't want to discount wind farms either.


It's not just one thing is it?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

QUOTE,

_*References*

Baker, Bentley, Ansell, & Harris (2005). 
*Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area.* 
Mammal Rev. 35, 302312.

Benton, T.G., Bryant, D.M., Cole, L. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2002). 
*Linking agricultural practice to insect and bird populations: 
a historical study over three decades.*
J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 673687.

Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. & Wilson, J.D. (2003). 
*Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?*
Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 182188.

BTO (2005) 
http://www.bto.org/gbw/PDFs/FEEDING-GARDENBIRDS.pdf

Case, T.J. (2000). 
*An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology.*
Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Churcher, P.B. & Lawton, J.H. (1987). 
*Predation by domestic cats in an English-village.*
J. Zool. (Lond.) 212, 439455.

Crick, Marchant, Noble, Baillie, Balmer, Beaven, Coombes, Downie, Freeman,
Joys, Leech, Raven, Robinson, & Thewlis (2003). 
*Breeding birds in the wider countryside: their conservation status 
2003  trends in numbers and breeding performance for UK birds.*
Thetford: British Trust for Ornithology.

Crick, Robertson, Appleton, Clark, & Rickard (2002) 
*Investigation into the causes of the decline of starlings & house sparrows in Great Britain.*
A report to the Dept for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs by a consortium led by the British Trust 
for Ornithology, DEFRA, Bristol.

Crooks & Soule (1999). 
*Mesopredator release & avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.*
Nature 400, 563566.

DEFRA (2004a). 
*House sparrow conference summary document*
DEFRA, RSPB, BTO, GLA.

London: DEFRA, RSPB, BTO, GLA. DEFRA (2004b). 
*Indicators for sustainable development in the UK: H13, wildlife.* 
London: DEFRA.

Fitzgerald, B.M. (1990). 
*Is cat control needed to protect urban wildlife?*
Environ. Conserv. 17, 168169.

Fuller, Smith, Sanderson, Hill, Thompson, Cox, Brown, Clarke, Rothery, & Gerard (2002) 
*Countryside survey 2000 module 7. Land cover map 2000.* 
Final report CSLCM/final, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK, Monks Wood.

Gering & Blair (1999). 
*Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: 
predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments?* 
Ecography 22, 532541.

Gil-Sanchez, Valenzuela, & Sanchez (1999). 
*Iberian wild cat Felis silvestris tartessia predation on rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus: 
functional response and age selection.* 
Acta Theriol. 44, 421428.

Gooch, Baillie, & Birkhead, (1991). 
*Magpie Pica pica & songbird populations  retrospective 
investigation of trends in popn-density & breeding success.*
J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 10681086.

Haskell, Knupp, & Schneider (2001). 
*Nest predator abundance & urbanization.* 
In Avian ecology & conservation in an urbanizing world, 243258.
Marzluff, Bowman, & Dennelly, (Eds). 
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hole, Whittingham, Bradbury, Anderson, Lee, Wilson, & Krebs, (2002).
*Widespread local house-sparrow extinctions: agricultural inten-
sification is blamed for the plummeting popns of these birds.*
Nature 418, 931932.

Jarvis, P.J. (1990). 
*Urban cats as pests & pets.*
Environ. Conserv. 17, 169171.

Kays & DeWan (2004). 
*Ecological impact of inside/ outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve.*
Anim. Conserv. 7, 273283.

Kokko, H. & Ruxton, G.D. (2000). 
*Breeding suppression & predatorprey dynamics.*
Ecology 81, 252260.

Lepczyk, C.A., Mertig, A.G. & Liu, J.G. (2004). 
*Landowners & cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.* 
Biol. Conserv. 115, 191201.

Lima, S.L. (1987). 
*Clutch size in birds: a predation perspective.*
Ecology 68, 10621070.

Lima, S.L. (1998).
*Stress & decision making under the risk of predation: recent devel-
opments from behavioral, reproductive, & ecological perspectives.*
Advantages in the Study of Behaviour, Vol. 27: 215290.

MacLeod, R., Barnett, P., Clark, J. & Creswell, W. (2006). 
*Mass-dependent predation risk as a mechanism for house sparrow declines?*
Biol. Lett. 2, 4346.

Marzluff, J.M., Bowman, R. & Dennelly, R. (Eds). (2001). 
*Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world.* 
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

May, R.M. (1988). 
*Control of feline delinquency.* 
Nature 332, 392393.

McKinney, M.L. (2002). 
*Urbanization, biodiversity, & conservation.* 
Bioscience 52, 883890.

Animal Conservation ]] (2007) 
16 c ? 2007 
The Authors.

Journal compilation c ?2007 
The Zoological Society of London 5
*Urban bird declines*
Beckerman, Boots & Gaston

Newson, Woodburn, Noble, Baillie, & Gregory (2005). 
*Evaluating the Breeding Bird Survey for producing national popn size & density estimates.*
Bird Study 52, 4254.

Newton, I., Dale, L. & Rothery, P. (1997). 
*Apparent lack of impact of Sparrowhawks on the breeding 
densities of some woodland songbirds.*
Bird Study 44, 129135.

Nowell, K. & Jackson, P. (1996). 
*Wild cats: status survey & conservation action plan.*
Gland: IUCN.

ODPM (2001) 
*Habitat UK National Report.* 
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606539-02.hcsp

Pauchard, Aguayo, Pena, & Urrutia (2006). 
*Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing 
countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepcion, 
Chile).*
Biol. Conserv. 127, 272281.

PFMA (2003) 
*Historical Records of Pet Ownership.*
http://www.pfma.com/public/ownershiphistorical.htm

Preisser, E.L., Bolnick, D.I. & Benard, M.F. (2005). 
*Scared to death? The effects of intimidation & consumption
in predatorprey interactions.*
Ecology 86, 501509.

RSPB (2005) 
http://www.rspb.org.uk/gardens/advice/cats/index.asp

Ruxton, G.D. & Lima, S.L. (1997). 
*Predator-induced breeding suppression & its consequences
for predatorprey population dynamics.*
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B  Biol. Sci. 264, 409415.

Ruxton, G.D., Thomas, S. & Wright, J.W. (2002). 
*Bells reduce predation of wildlife by domestic cats, Felis catus.*
J. Zool. (Lond.) 256, 8183.

Shochat, E. (2004). 
*Credit or debit? Resource input changes popn dynamics of city-slicker birds.*
Oikos 106, 622626.

Thomson, D.L., Green, R.E., Gregory, R.D. & Baillie, S.R. (1998). 
*The widespread declines of songbirds in rural Britain do not 
correlate with the spread of their avian predators.*
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B- Biol. Sci. 265, 20572062.

Thorington, K.K. & Bowman, R. (2003). 
*Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human 
housing density in suburban habitats.*
Ecography 26, 188196.

Vickery, J.A., Bradbury, R.B., Henderson, I.G., Eaton, M.A. & Grice, P.V. (2004). 
*The role of agri-environment schemes & farm management practices
in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England.* 
Biol. Conserv. 119, 1939.

Woods, M., McDonald, R.A. & Harris, S. (2003). 
*Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain.* 
Mammal Rev. 33, 174188.

Animal Conservation ]] (2007) 16 c ? 2007 
The Authors.

Journal compilation c ?2007 
The Zoological Society of London 6 
*Urban bird declines*
Beckerman, Boots and Gaston_


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Keep rationalizing. The evidence has been available for decades.
> Denial is a big river, but it can't sweep away the facts.
> 
> That a given cat never trophies anything [doesn't bring home live or dead prey] is NOT proof that
> ...


Incorrect, the 'evidence' is inconclusive (UK) & there are many factors to consider

Regarding the catches, my cats always bring home their prizes, & eat them in exactly the same place in my house. Despite being well fed both of them eat the mice & young rats they catch (not the bigger ones though). I have watched each cat outside at their favourite location for mouse hunting & every, single time they bring their catches home so I do know what they kill.

I am not in denial, I just have an opinion that is different to yours


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> The biggest threat to birds & any [other species] is [humans] worldwide, not cats being let outside
> *in the UK*. There are literally billions of feral cats worldwide. Cats doing their own thing all over
> Europe, Asia etc.


U keep phrasing it as if it's *ONLY* bird-popns, & *ONLY* the UK that's effected; that's not a tenth of it.
Housecats have exceedingly catholic tastes; they'll eat ANYthing, if it's not too enormous to tackle.

Before being banned from Antarctica, feral cats there were killing & eating penguin chicks.







Cats - owned or not, feral or not, but AT LARGE - are among the *Top-10 most destructive alien species*
around the world.

Domestic cats are destroying the planet

It's not "just" the UK, altho native birds who live ONLY in the UK are obviously at greater risk from UK-cats,
since living on an island, they have no escape - but tropicene species in the USA who live most of the year 
in Central & South America, are profoundly affected by cat-predation during their breeding season.

Per researchers quoting prior studies, un-owned cats have been implicated in 33 modern bird, mammal, & reptile 
extinctions [in Nature Communications].

Be proud of Ur roaming predator - brag about her or him helping to exterminate UK-natives.

With luck, all the UK-endemic species larger than amoebae, microbes, & algae, from invertebrates to
herps, mammals, & birds, will all be wiped-out, & we can live in an entirely homogenous world: humans,
starlings, pigeons, cockroaches, & cats - with FIVE grains, FIVE domestic species raised for meat,
all bred & reared in total-confinement, & small, extremely-expensive enclaves of open ground,
were the very-rich can go to ride a horse, hunt stocked game, & so on.

It won't be democratic, & it won't be rich & varied, but we can all feel happy that NO continent has anything
that the other 6, lack - won't that be wonderful? Fleas, leeches, roundworms, pinworms... we share them all;
quetzal, ne'ne', peregrine, wolverine, red deer, lemurs, all gone. Who cares? - i mean really, what use are they?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Now you're exaggerating and I'm not sure you've read your links tbh.

Pretty much only the UK is affected by people in the UK letting their pet cats out, which is what I thought we were talking about.

*The major scourges for wildlife were not those free-ranging, owned-cats, but instead feral and un-owned cats that survive on the streets.*

From your link, talking about the US again of course and about estimates, not actual statistics, from research that isn't sure how many un-owned or feral cats there are in the USA. It could be a mere 30 million, but otoh, it could be 80 million, that's a pretty big difference. But either way, people letting their pet cats out and about to range free isn't the problem and that's according to a link that you say proves it is.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> Pretty much only the UK is affected by people in the UK letting their pet cats out, which is what
> I thought we were talking about.


Actually, no - i'm talking about the GLOBAL attitude of cat-owners, who universally hold that "their"
personal Fluffy has a vested right to roam at will - not "just the UK".

The only thing that stopped Aussie cat-owners turning Fluffy loose wasn't the massive impact on native species;
it was *LAWS* with fines, cat-trapping campaigns, cat-extermination campaigns, etc. They still haven't
wiped-out the feral cat-popn in the Outback, but they're chipping away at it.

As for the USA, i've already said more than once that i'd be happy to see bounties paid for dead cats.
IMO the havoc caused, not "just" to wildlife but to the community, merits it. My 3-years in Norfolk, on a
side-street heavily populated by free-roaming cats, was even worse than the prior 10-plus years in Va Beach;
i raised nothing in my 10-ft by 12-ft garden in 3-years, other than cat-sh!t. My thoughtful downstairs neighbor
left her tuxedo-tom roam at large, & he not only sprayed my outdoor furniture, he sprayed my DOOR -
the storm-door. For the rest of my tenancy, every time i opened that dam*ed door & it was warmer than 50-F,
the stink came out in a tidal wave.

That same cat jumped into another tenant's car, & sprayed the UPHOLSTERY - in September. They drove with
the windows down, all thru the winter - despite repeated cleanings, just as i did, with enzyme-based products.

He also killed A ROUND DOZEN adult migratory songbirds, in a 3-month period - i know, because >> I <<
picked up their heads & guts - the last 3 were dumped inside the owner's own storm-door, as a polite reminder to
keep her G**D****ED cat indoors; she insisted it "couldn't be him". Really?... Given that he'd beaten the cr*p
out of all the other cats on the street, who the H*** else would it have been?


Elles said:


> ...people letting their pet cats out & about to range free, isn't the problem...


Actually, yes - it is.
PET CATS WHO ARE OWNED BY PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE A PROFOUND 
IMPACT ON NATIVE SPECIES, DIRECTLY & LETHALLY, *AND* INDIRECTLY & NON-LETHALLY.

Constantly startling foraging-birds, SPECIFICALLY across the UK, DUE TO THE INCREDIBLE DENSITY
OF CATS PER SQUARE-KILOMETER, is just one of the many ongoing "indirect" effects.

And surely U aren't going to try to claim that owned-cats have some sort of built-in moral imperative,
& would *never* catch & kill, or simply puncture & play with, birds, small mammals, herps, etc?...
That's a joke. Cats are hard-wired to pounce on & chase anything that moves or sounds "right".

A fledgling who dies before becoming an adult, due to stunting, poor feather, & other *nutritional
deficiencies* caused by "indirect" effects of roaming cats, is just as dead as if dear, sweet Fluffy
pounced on the bird, punctured their body with teeth & claws, & batted it about till the squawking stopped.
Dead is dead - whether of immediate killing or a massive infection from a single claw-puncture, a week
later, or due to poor feather from lousy nutrition - plumage that isn't water- & wind-proof kills: hypothermia
is a peaceful death, but still quite fatal.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

but the link you pointed me at said that owned cats allowed to range free aren't the problem, so you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with your own evidence.  Maybe well fed owned cats aren't as fast and keen to catch healthy animals and birds, as those that rely on them for survival. What I typed up in bold was directly copied from your own link.

Rabbits were a huge problem in Australia, so should we kill all the wild rabbits in the UK? Oh, we did once try to by infecting them with myxi, that was nice wasn't it.

In the UK it is currently perfectly acceptable to let your pet cat outside. Many people have a cat flap so the cat can come and go when he likes at certain times, maybe locking him in at night.

Although some areas may have a problem with feral or neglected cats, on the whole I believe most don't these days. We also have the RSPCA and the CPL who deal with some of them.

If you want to change attitudes, it's no use going on about how it affects wildlife when there's no proof it does here and the links you keep providing with proof, actually say the opposite, or are woolly at least.

Our own RSPB cites a number of reasons for any decline in any UK bird population and not all are declining. I couldn't find any particular reference to cats. They go on more about farming practices, buildings, destroying habitats that kind of thing.

So just maybe your anti cat rant doesn't really apply as much here, at least in some areas.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but the cats around here are all neutered, micro chipped and wear collars, usually with bells attached and are usually seen waiting outside their owner's doors at tea time for them to come home from work and don't seem to cause a problem with spraying and calling and fighting. I don't know their names, I just know the patchy one with the crooked ear lives at number 2 with his sibling who looks the same without the crooked ear, the black one lives at number 15, the light ginger coloured one lives at number 32 etc.

I don't even like cats, but I think it's most unfair to blame them for all the ills in the world without proof and insist everyone keeps their cats indoors, even in a small country miles away from you, because of a problem with some of them. That's like blaming all dogs for the one that attacked and killed that poor girl in the newspapers not so long ago. After all, all dogs can bite and potentially cause harm.

You seem to me to want all cats locked up because you don't like them messing in your garden and spraying at your door. If you didn't think they decimate wild animal populations or get run over, you'd still want them locked up because they annoy the neighbours.

If you don't want cats coming in your garden, you can cat proof your garden yourself you know and if your landlord wouldn't let you, then that's just the way it is. Don't step in the fox poo on your way out.

My actual opinion on cats? My own personal opinion, rather than fighting for individual rights in the UK under current law and custom? They're mostly (other than some specific breeds) not the kind of animals who should be kept as pets and certainly not as indoor pets, they're too wild. :yikes:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Anyway, I only read this thread because I was looking for a good thread to point someone at. They've got 2 little dogs, one, who's less than 6 months old, barks at everything when he's on a lead and won't come away from other dogs. The owner was advised by a trainer not to pick him up and walk away with him, but to squirt him with water, or rattle a can of stones at him and drag him away on his lead, rather than picking him up.

I told her to pick him up and walk in the opposite direction before he sees the other dogs for the time being and I'll try to find a thread about why not to squirt or rattle at him and links for a good trainer.

I don't even have a bloody cat. :laugh:


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Oi stop with da cat-hatin'..... :incazzato: take it to Cat Chat so we can beat you up


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Just in case. I don't hate cats. I don't like cats, I like dogs, 'tis different from hating cats. It would be like my saying I don't like Brad Pitt, I like Johnny Depp. It wouldn't mean I hate Brad Pitt, or even that I'd say no.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Elles said:


> Anyway, I only read this thread because I was looking for a good thread to point someone at. They've got 2 little dogs, one, who's less than 6 months old, barks at everything when he's on a lead and won't come away from other dogs. The owner was advised by a trainer not to pick him up and walk away with him, but to squirt him with water, or rattle a can of stones at him and drag him away on his lead, rather than picking him up.
> 
> I told her to pick him up and walk in the opposite direction before he sees the other dogs for the time being and I'll try to find a thread about why not to squirt or rattle at him and links for a good trainer.
> 
> I don't even have a bloody cat. :laugh:


I get very annoyed when these people call themselves dog trainers. Anything aversive is going to make the dog think the other dog has caused his discomfort and make the situation worse. Anyone with half a brian cell could work that out. If the dog is small enough to pick up, why not short his lead a bit and walk quickly in the other direction with him? That is what I would do. Hell, that is what I do with my own dogs if I want to move them quickly away from a situation. When taken by surprise, it works. If I hang about Ferdie will sit down and refuse to move, but either way the situation is defused.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> ... Maybe well-fed owned cats aren't as fast & keen to catch healthy animals & birds,
> as those that rely on [eating] them for survival.


Actually, that's not true - good rationalizing, tho.
In case U've forgotten, all the recent studies using cat-mounted cameras used OWNED cats -
the owners put the camera-collar on, remove it, download the video, & submit it.

FAT cats who have zero "need" to eat wildlife, who in fact should be eating LESS, still pounce on
wildlife. I've met plenty of owners who insist "their" cat would never catch wild critters - it's hooey.
Cats are opportunistic - if they see or hear something that moves or sounds right, they grab the chance.


Elles said:


> You seem to me to want all cats locked up because you don't like them messing in your garden
> & spraying at your door. If you didn't think they decimate wild animal populations or get run over,
> you'd still want them locked up because they annoy the neighbours.


Got it in one. :thumbsup:

My current neighbor runs an unofficial "feeding station" behind her house - owned cats, feral cats,
intact or desexed cats, they all come by to eat, spray, & quarrel. On friday morning i was awakened
at 4:45-AM by 2 of her little darlings, swearing & screaming & cursing at the top of their lungs - i hope to H***
that both of them went home with injuries that required stitches & antibiotics, SO THAT THEIR OWNERS will
be sufficiently p*ssed off by the vet's bill to keep them at home, where they belong.

If they're both genuinely homeless, i hope the ensuing infection is fast & fatal to both.

Running ad-lib feeding stations only creates a local attractive nuisance - it brings cats into proximity,
helps spread contagious disease, & creates the perfect recipe for fights.

I don't hate cats.
I *do* hate owners who let them roam at large - & i think it's irresponsible,
re their supposedly-beloved cat's safety & welfare, & damnably *rude* per their neighbors.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

rona said:


> *I believe that far greater risk to songbirds in the uk is the explosion in the grey squirrel population*. Having said that, the increase in felines cannot be ruled out as an issue.
> 
> However I do feel that a large proportion of cat owners in the UK do all they can to alleviate the problem.
> 
> The huge increase in birds of prey would frighten them far more than a land locked creature


Yes, I once watched a grey squirrel raid a tawny owl nest box and kill 2 chicks. The huge increase in magpie numbers is a factor too, I think. They are well known to raid nests of songbirds. The current fashion for annual flailing of hedges into low square shape aids them in this, as they can see down into the hedges to where the nests are. In traditional farming, hedges were cut into an A-shape and only trimmed every 3 years which gave much better nesting opportunities with greater concealment from predators.

Songbirds have declined everywhere, town and country. In agricultural areas, cats are not plentiful enough to be solely responsible.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I have many different birds in my garden as I have a lot of feeders out; gold finches, green finches, sparrows, blue tits, chaffinches, robins, collard doves, pigeons, great tits, lesser spotted wood peckers, starlings, black birds, wrens, dunncoks. red legged partridges & pheasants

None have ever been caught by my cats (apart from the Zebra finch who came in to the house) though I do keep the cats in during the day when the fledglings are out, just in case.

But so far the only one to have killed a fledgling, a red legged partridge & a pheasant is Roxy ... a dog.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

if U let Ur cat roam at large, U are adding to the problem.

Very few raptors eat BIRDS, & even fewer raptors eat SONGBIRDS.
Peregrines & redtailed hawks are popular in USA cities, because they help reduce the pigeon-popn.

To the best of my knowledge, rabbits in the UK are not endangered - raptors, fox, etc, eat them.

As for grey squirrels, they're another alien species - just like housecats.
I'd suggest eradicating the grey squirrels, in favor of native reds.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> if U let Ur cat roam at large, U are adding to the problem.
> 
> Very few raptors eat BIRDS, & even fewer raptors eat SONGBIRDS.
> Peregrines & redtailed hawks are popular in USA cities, because they help reduce the pigeon-popn.
> ...


Few raptors eat birds? Really? I have seen quite a few eating small birds. Where I used to live a buzzard regularly came to the feeders simply to pick off the birds he wanted.

As for alien specieis, that's another arguement as to what is now considered alien .....


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Ironically, I recently had a new nesting bird in my garden. My OH and I went to great lengths to construct a baffle so that my cats couldn't get to the nest, only to discover the next morning that rats had gotten to the nest instead, destroying all the eggs. 

(BTW my cats are indoors, with supervised access to the catproof garden only in the mornings and late afternoons/evenings). 
My OH and I love having the birds in the garden and have numerous feeders and bird tables. The cats are watched carefully at all times. Only one of them is any good at hunting, thankfully. 
I agree free-roaming cats are pests, but there is very little to be done about this realistically. All i can do is keep my own safe. 

Feral cat colonies will always be with us, alas, due to mankind's carelessness. I myself have a colony of four (all sterilised at my own cost) who get fed twice daily. THe premises where they live has many trees and birds. I have only seen a few bird corpses in the five years I have been caring for them (but lots of rat corpses, which is why the management agreed they could stay ) Maybe the US birds are just too slow or thick? 

If I were to remove the cats, more would come. Where people/food/rodents are, ferals will be. If you have a sustainable solution to this, I would love to know.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> if U let Ur cat roam at large, U are adding to the problem.
> 
> Very few raptors eat BIRDS, & even fewer raptors eat SONGBIRDS.
> Peregrines & redtailed hawks are popular in USA cities, because they help reduce the pigeon-popn.
> ...


Tried and failed - and now there aren't enough native reds to repopulate because of the virus carried by the greys that has seriously reduced the remnant colonies. You're welcome to come and take your greys back.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

leashedForLife said:


> if U let Ur cat roam at large, U are adding to the problem.
> 
> *Very few raptors eat BIRDS, & even fewer raptors eat SONGBIRDS.*
> Peregrines & redtailed hawks are popular in USA cities, because they help reduce the pigeon-popn.
> ...


Could do with you telling the Sparrowhawk that regularly comes to the garden to catch and eat birds of all sorts, shapes and sizes. Not called a Sparrowhawk for no reason.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Siskin said:


> Could do with you telling the Sparrowhawk that regularly comes to the garden to catch and eat birds
> of all sorts, shapes and sizes. Not called a Sparrowhawk for no reason.


well, *duh...*

_a Sparrowhawk or kestrel is only ONE species of raptor.
Yes, they eat birds - what about the other UK-raptors?

here in the USA, would anyone be astonished that Ospreys eat *fish?*

or that Bald Eagles, crows, & ravens eat *carrion?*

in the USA, we have dozens of raptor species.
There are only *4* that make birds a large part of their diets: Kestrels, Cooper's Hawks, & Sharpshins,
plus Peregrine Falcons - Cooper's & Sharpshins are bird-specialists, the other 2 will cheerfully take whatever
is on offer; Peregrines will take ducks or pigeons, rabbits or songbirds; Kestrels will take mice, etc.

So... how many UK-raptor species make *songbirds* a large component of their diets?
Other than Kestrels.

Please stop making excuses - & poor excuses, at that. Cats will kill anything that's small-enuf; 
cats don't CARE if it's an invertebrate, a reptile, a mammal, a bird, whatever. They are *generalists*,
& as a result, they threaten any wild species that's smaller than they are - or in some cases, as big as
the cat, since i've seen adult cats take full-grown rabbits._


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> You're welcome to come and take your greys back.


They're not *MY* grey squirrels - any more than the starlings & English sparrows, here, are Ur
personal deployments to North America.

I didn't send the one, any more than i imported the others - but i'll be happy to help eradicate the aliens.
I'd suggest a bounty on them. Tails are a good way to keep count, & a pellet-gun works well.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Firearms are always the solution for you Americans, aren't they?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Please stop making excuses - & poor excuses, at that. Cats will kill anything that's small-enuf;
> cats don't CARE if it's an invertebrate, a reptile, a mammal, a bird, whatever. They are *generalists*,
> & as a result, they threaten any wild species that's smaller than they are - or in some cases, as big as
> the cat, since i've seen adult cats take full-grown rabbits.[/SIZE][/I]


It's not about making excuses .... I'm talking about fact (in regard to my cats anyway). They kill, mice, rats & the odd shrew - they do 'choose' what they catch & do not bother with birds :confused1:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> They're not *MY* grey squirrels - any more than the starlings & English sparrows, here, are Ur
> personal deployments to North America.
> 
> I didn't send the one, any more than i imported the others - but i'll be happy to help eradicate the aliens.
> I'd suggest a bounty on them. Tails are a good way to keep count, & a pellet-gun works well.


Was a bounty on them for several years and you can actually sell a decent tail these days. I think mainly to make flies for fly fishing

Grey Squirrel Control: Actively promoting the humane culling of grey squirrels


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

rona said:


> Was a bounty on them for several years and you can actually sell a decent tail these days. I think mainly to make flies for fly fishing
> 
> Grey Squirrel Control: Actively promoting the humane culling of grey squirrels


Yup, very useful for use in making flies. One tail lasts an awful long time though.

Peregrines are increasingly found in British cities as they particularly like our tall buildings to nest on, old churches and cathedrals have some very handy ledges. A study has been taken in London to see what they peregrines are eating, mainly pigeons, but all sorts make up the menu including some song birds. Interestingly bats figure highly as the light conditions in London are allowing peregrines to hunt at night when they need lots of food for youngsters.

There are a number of raptors in the UK that will take small birds, mostly small falcons such as Merlins and Hobbys, but larger ones such as the Hen Harrier and Goshawk, there is also a problem with Corvids taking young songbirds particularly Magpies.
I'm not defending cats in the slightest, but there are a number of factors that reduce the number of songbirds, habitat loss, predatory birds and predatory mammals and disturbance by humans and dogs. It's not clear cut.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> well, *duh...*
> 
> _a *Sparrowhawk or kestrel is only ONE species of raptor*.
> Yes, they eat birds - what about the other UK-raptors?
> ...


No, two species. And Kestrels don't normally eat birds. Sparrowhawk (_Accipiter nisus_) eats songbirds and really nothing else. Kestrel (_Falco tinnunculus_) eats small mammals, not birds at all (though they will eat day-old chicks in captivity). Peregrine falcon (_Falco peregrinus_) eats birds, usually pigeons though also smaller birds. I've seen one kill a songbird (Blackbird, _Turdus merula_).

There are loads of Sparrowhawks now. When I was a kid, they were really rare.

I think it's naive to pin the blame on cats. Changes in land management, agriculture and woodland management have far more to do with it.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

I have seen a kestrel take a small bird.
Early one morning I was watching blue tit chicks leave a nest box on the side of the house. What I hadn't noticed was a kestrel sitting on the telegraph pole also watching the proceedings. One little chick flew down to a bush in my garden then flew across the lane to a small tree. Halfway across the kestrel swept in and grabbed the chick and flew off. A few minutes later he was back on his perch ready for the next chick. It was at that point I decided to make my presence known before he took all the chicks.
Small birds undoubtably make up part of a kestrels diet, but their main quarry will be voles and mice. Like many raptors, they are opportunists.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> No, two species. And Kestrels don't normally eat birds. Sparrowhawk (_Accipiter nisus_) eats songbirds and really nothing else. Kestrel (_Falco tinnunculus_) eats small mammals, not birds at all (though they will eat day-old chicks in captivity). Peregrine falcon (_Falco peregrinus_) eats birds, usually pigeons though also smaller birds. I've seen one kill a songbird (Blackbird, _Turdus merula_).
> 
> There are loads of Sparrowhawks now. When I was a kid, they were really rare.
> 
> I think it's naive to pin the blame on cats. Changes in land management, agriculture and woodland management have far more to do with it.


I think birds of prey were bought up because LFL was saying that cats frighten as many birds as they kill, preventing them from breeding effectively. 
I feel that birds of prey whatever type, will create far more terror and effect a wider area of our native birds than a few wandering cats.


----------



## Anwat1982 (Feb 11, 2014)

Decide on behaviors that you would like to train your dog out of. Outfit yourself and every room in your house with a training spray bottle. Pay close attention to your dog and his behavior. When your dog does something you don't want him to do, say "No" very sharply, and in a low-toned voice. If he continues to do it, squirt him in the face or rump with the squirt bottle. Continue to say "no" and squirt your dog until he stops the behavior. Immediately put down the bottle and call your dog to you. Praise your dog for coming to you and continue about your business.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Anwat1982 said:


> Decide on behaviors that you would like to train your dog out of. Outfit yourself and every room in your house with a training spray bottle. Pay close attention to your dog and his behavior. When your dog does something you don't want him to do, say "No" very sharply, and in a low-toned voice. If he continues to do it, squirt him in the face or rump with the squirt bottle. Continue to say "no" and squirt your dog until he stops the behavior. Immediately put down the bottle and call your dog to you. Praise your dog for coming to you and continue about your business.


Ah, back on topic!

I opened the thread a day or so ago to see what people were saying about spraying dogs with water, and it was all about cats and songbirds. What the hell happened?


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Ah, back on topic!
> 
> I opened the thread a day or so ago to see what people were saying about spraying dogs with water, and it was all about cats and songbirds. What the hell happened?


I thought that too. but nice to be able to talk about birds for a bit.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

koekemakranka said:


> Firearms are always the solution for you Americans, aren't they?


oh, very droll. :lol:

Actually, they're *not* "always the solution". I'm perfectly willing to live-trap cats & take them to a shelter;
adoptable cats can go home with someone - ferals can be euthanized. Perfectly acceptable, IMO.

"Saving" every cat is NOT acceptable to me; cats who literally cannot live in human-homes aren't IMO
"helped" by being released again, as they will simply continue to trash wildlife, spray / fight / get hurt / get sick,
scatter their urine & feces about, upset indoor-cats by invading their [visual] space, etc.

It's not ONLY about the individual cat's life; it's also the larger community of humans & other species.
TNR doesn't do a dam*ed thing for wildlife; it's just a feel-good sop for human emotions.
Apparently it's fine for wild creatures to suffer, but it's somehow unfair to remove & euthanize feral cats;
i strongly disagree, & sadly it's not legal to either desex or euthanize the b*st*rds who abandon cats
to survive as best they can, & breed more to also survive if possible.

AT SOME POINT, the endless chain of abandon / allow intact-cats to roam, unwanted kittens / more cats...
HAS TO STOP. I don't give a hairy wombat if a cat is owned or not; *cats should not free-roam,
INTACT cats who free-roam should be confiscated & desexed at the owner's cost, & if the same cat is
picked-up more than 2x in her or his lifetime, the already-desexed cat is re-homed to another owner - 
that's my version of the "3 strikes rule".*


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> I opened the thread a day or so ago to see what people were saying about spraying dogs with water,
> & it was all about cats & songbirds. What the hell happened?


simple 3-step process:

A - 
cat-owner brags about how wonderfully spraying her free-roaming cat worked, TO PREVENT 
HER CAT CROSSING THE ROAD.

B - 
suggestion is made that her cat ought not to be free-roaming, & then would not be in danger of being hurt
or killed by passing vehicles. Cars, after all, are rare indoors & in enclosed gardens.

C - 
cat-owner asserts her pet's *natural right* to roam at large, & how can she protect her off-leash pet from
traffic, WITHOUT a spray-bottle / water-pistol / garden-hose / other water-delivery option?

_and they're off..._

This, BTW, is my favorite water-delivery device for free-roaming cats:


----------



## zedder (Aug 21, 2013)

I wouldn't spray my dog with water especially since he has a massive water phobia


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

I have used rattle cans (on the subject of aversives) in a less aware past. Worked OK with Wilma as a distraction, Betty just ran over, picked it up and brought it back to me. Spose it DID distract her.....

Now I just stick to being as interesting as I can and using rewards.


----------

