# The 2 schools of thought regarding training dogs



## Dobry (Nov 6, 2011)

One of course, is the emphasis that you are the pack leader, you're the alpha and that everything stems from there (ie Caesar Milan the Dog Whisperer). the other is a newer concept based on that dogs see us more as playmates and debunking the alpha theory based on the latest science on wolves and dogs. *See the new book called "Dog Sense" by John Bradshaw.
*
I have a mutt that has a dominant personality (will hump other dogs) and barks and can act aggressive toward other dogs, especially if he and the other dogs are restrained. But he has never bitten anyone or any dog and he's hung out with a lot of different dogs (lived with some lab and lab mixes for several months, dog parks, meeting dogs on hikes, etc.) 

I'm feeling caught in the middle about this. Not sure what to do because he likes to play tug and the 2 schools of thought differ on this. One would say no because it encourages aggression and you "must win" the game. The other implies that your dog sees you as another playmate and is not out to dominate, especially, if when you let go of the rope your dog comes back right away with it and begs "more more!" (he sees you as a fun playmate). And if you don't engage in tug with him, your dog will simply see you as "no fun".

Would it be a safe assumption to say that the type of training needed is based on the individual dog's personality?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Dobry said:


> One of course, is the emphasis that you are the pack leader, you're the alpha and that everything stems from there (ie Caesar Milan the Dog Whisperer). the other is a newer concept based on that dogs see us more as playmates and debunking the alpha theory based on the latest science on wolves and dogs. *See the new book called "Dog Sense" by John Bradshaw.
> *
> I have a mutt that has a dominant personality (will hump other dogs) and barks and can act aggressive toward other dogs, especially if he and the other dogs are restrained. But he has never bitten anyone or any dog and he's hung out with a lot of different dogs (lived with some lab and lab mixes for several months, dog parks, meeting dogs on hikes, etc.)
> 
> ...


Humping can be a sign of arousal, or an invitation to play, or a question "Is it okay if I do this to you?" I think when you base training on incorrect information (traditional alpha wolf theory) you may be more likely to get incorrect results. Tug is fine if the human sets the rules.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

I've always enjoyed playing tug, even wrestling around on the floor with my dogs. They know when I'm playing, they stop when I say stop. I would rather ignore the "alpha wolf pack" theories and go with what I've learned through experience which is, dogs will follow a leader, you don't have to "prove you are the leader", you just have to "be the leader." In my experience, that doesn't mean "don't play with the dog", they are quite capable of seeing you as playmate one minute and boss the next. If you don't provide leadership you'll likely end up with a problem dog, possessive, anxious, maybe agressive, who knows what all.

[thanks for the book recommendation, here's another _Inside of a Dog_ (Horowitz)]


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dobry said:


> Would it be a safe assumption to say that the type of training needed is based on the individual dog's personality?


No.

The type of training needed is based on the laws of learning. Be it dog, human, whale, or slug. 

How those laws are explained, that makes sense to you, is a different story; to which, there are many covers for that book...you've only touched on 2. In the end, it's usually never more complicated than the laws of learning and learning thoery.


----------



## a7dk (Mar 30, 2011)

Dog Sense was a great book - well researched, and well-cited. That is the difference between the alpha-CM stuff and behavior theory. Behavior theory (learning theory) has solid science to back it up. 

Re-read what Bradshaw had to say about playing tug. One of the things that comes to mind is a study that compared letting dogs win vs. not letting them win. Although it was not true that dogs who won became more aggressive, those dogs did learn that playing tug was more fun and were more likely to try to initiate play.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I have several dominant dogs, they all play tug with me. Tugging is one way of building confidence in a dog. As pups, they are always allowed to win. They are also taught to out as young pups, and taught voraan, enough or go away. 
Dogs know you are not a dog. Period. Your dog doesn't sound as if he is trying to dominate you. 

I have seen many working dogs brought up with both methods. The "I have to show I'm the boss" method, makes for grumpy dogs, likely to bite their handler. The play method, makes dogs that can't wait to work, and always wanting more interaction with you.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

training a dog to me boils down on how we guide a dog into doing what we want.

We can add something that the dog likes when he does what we want. 
We can remove something the dog likes when he doesn't do what we want. WE can add something the dog doesn't like when he does what we don't want. 
We can remove something the dog doesn't like when he does what we want. 

The consequences have to meaningful to the dog and they have to be timely. If I give him food for sitting and he is not hungry it is not meaningful. If I take him in the house after training and give a hungry dog a steak, even though meaningful it is not timely.

Personality and genetics affect training and are factors that are dependent on the dog and may or may not be greatly altered. 


Now my opinion on tug. I think its a great game to work on self control.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

DustyCrockett said:


> I've learned through experience which is, dogs will follow a leader, you don't have to "prove you are the leader", you just have to "be the leader."


I like this! You should just lead, just communicate what you want, train them on how to accomplish that, and just lead. 

I have to say, I don't really agree with the way the OP (Dobry) summed up the 2 schools of thought, it was either "you are the pack leader, you're the alpha" or "a newer concept based on that dogs see us more as playmates..."
I don't think I've every heard anyone say, here or elsewhere, that you should simply be your dog's playmate. That would be about as successful as being your kid's friend instead of their parent. 
I would say the "newer" concept has to do with shaping and guiding a dog's behavior, not just being it's playmate.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> I like this! You should just lead, just communicate what you want, train them on how to accomplish that, and just lead.
> 
> I have to say, I don't really agree with the way the OP (Dobry) summed up the 2 schools of thought, it was either "you are the pack leader, you're the alpha" or "a newer concept based on that dogs see us more as playmates..."
> I don't think I've every heard anyone say, here or elsewhere, that you should simply be your dog's playmate. That would be about as successful as being your kid's friend instead of their parent.
> I would say the "newer" concept has to do with shaping and guiding a dog's behavior, not just being it's playmate.


Really good point. I ask pretty much the same things from my dogs that I always did - I just ask for it in a different way. They still have rules and boundaries.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Read the Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. She gives very straight forward advice on playing tug and the rules of tug.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Dobry said:


> I'm feeling caught in the middle about this. Not sure what to do because he likes to play tug and the 2 schools of thought differ on this.
> 
> Would it be a safe assumption to say that the type of training needed is based on the individual dog's personality?


Schools of thought that you mentioned are for dealing with entirely different issues. The "dominant dog" theory is NOT *training*, it is rather an attempt to bring dominant aggressive dogs under some degree of control.

If your dog shows aggression during walks, train him the meaning of NO and he will probably figure out that what he's doing is wrong. Some dogs have simply learned this behaviour from other dogs, they're not really aggressive, just being idiots. 
Other than that, choke collars solve REAL aggression or first signs of dominance rather quickly, they *force* the dog to calm down and think about what just happened.

Before trying out implements of destruction on your dog, try teaching NO first. Even if it means embedding news paper on his butt. If he reacts to NO after this then you have done your first successful training session . Before this though I'd do my best to maintain his attention with food, plays, lots and lots of food and more games and avoid things that cause aggression for a few weeks - let him know that you're really an alright and pretty cool guy. I wouldn't train anything during this positive time with the dog.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Our ACD mix is dominant and very competitive. There is nothing wrong with her wanting to "win" every game, that's her personality and who she is and I'm not going to be able to change that by refusing to play her favorite games with her. What we have done is make sure she has solid "drop it", "leave it", "come", "sit" and "stay" commands. She can be as competitive playing tug of war as she wants, as long as, when we want her to let go, she responds to the "drop it" promptly and the "leave it" when we are done playing and the toy is being put away.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Schools of thought that you mentioned are for dealing with entirely different issues. The "dominant dog" theory is NOT *training*, it is rather an attempt to bring dominant aggressive dogs under some degree of control.
> 
> If your dog shows aggression during walks, train him the meaning of NO and he will probably figure out that what he's doing is wrong. Some dogs have simply learned this behaviour from other dogs, they're not really aggressive, just being idiots.
> Other than that, choke collars solve REAL aggression or first signs of dominance rather quickly, they *force* the dog to calm down and think about what just happened.
> ...


Umn, yeah. Choking a dog down can certainly make a dog "appear" calm. Just curious what "no" is supposed to teach a dog to do? Wouldn't it be more useful to teach a dog how to handle the situation calmly, without you having to intimidate or choke him?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Other than that, choke collars solve REAL aggression or first signs of dominance rather quickly, they *force* the dog to calm down and think about what just happened.


How does that work to calm them, most every living creature when choked gets into a panic non thinking mode that may end when choking stops. The aggression may also stop if dog is choked long enough but that also stops the dog so is not a good ending. I'm not sure of the learning curve on choking programs does it begin before, during, or after the choking.

I have no problem using aversives that work just don't believe choking something is one of them but good luck with that choking stuff. I have used other aversives to stop aggression, actually more to just protect myself from getting bit. No more, no less.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

SassyCat said:


> If your dog shows aggression during walks, train him the meaning of NO and he will probably figure out that what he's doing is wrong. Some dogs have simply learned this behaviour from other dogs, they're not really aggressive, just being idiots.
> Other than that, choke collars solve REAL aggression or first signs of dominance rather quickly, they *force* the dog to calm down and think about what just happened.
> 
> Before trying out implements of destruction on your dog, try teaching NO first. Even if it means embedding news paper on his butt. If he reacts to NO after this then you have done your first successful training session . Before this though I'd do my best to maintain his attention with food, plays, lots and lots of food and more games and avoid things that cause aggression for a few weeks - let him know that you're really an alright and pretty cool guy. I wouldn't train anything during this positive time with the dog.


I have to say that I agree with the others who have said that choke collars don't really force a dog to be calm. They force him to be frightened, or panicked, and they may appear to be calm, but are really just shutting down to avoid further issues.

I also don't agree with simply teaching the meaning of "no". The thing is, "no" basically, according to the dictionary (paraphrased) means to express denial or disagreement. The concept is somewhat similar, when you think about it, to the concept of "right vs wrong". And, dogs don't generally understand right vs wrong in the way humans do. They can learn to understand that certain things displease us, but they don't think in terms of right or wrong in general. 

So, to "train the meaning of no" is kind of overkill, and pointless, in a way. Dogs don't generalize well, we've heard that said many times. If you say no when you want the dog to stay off the couch, and no when you want the dog to stop chasing the cat, and no when you want the dog to stop jumping, it stops becoming a specific word meaning, and is simply becomes an interrupter word.

So, sure, if you want to use "no" as an interrupter word, a marker to interrupt a behavior, fine. But, you're not really teaching what humans know to be the meaning of "no". And, that can lead to problems, because no is super overused in today's society. My fiance comes home and says our favorite shop downtown gets broken into, I say "NO!" as in "no way! oh my gosh!" If he asks if I want to go to a movie and I'm too tired, I say "no". If my dog gets into something, HE says "no" (I hate using no with the dogs), if my niece calls and asks to come visit, I may jokingly say "no" before I say "just kidding". No is used all day, and it starts to lose meaning. In fact, it doesn't really have just one meaning, the way we use it in today's society. So, which definition are we expecting our dogs to "get"?

Also, many people change a simple "no" to "no, no NO NO NONONO!" when a dog is really frustrating them. And, since dogs generally learn sounds as opposed to actual words, "no, no no NO NO NONONO" doesn't mean the same thing.

And, bottom line is, if you use "no" as an interrupter, it would also be wise to include what you DO want them to do, not just what you DON'T want.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Choke collars use a rather simple concept: dog's air supply is stopped therefore its priorities change. This is sometimes only way to manage a situation with large aggressive dog however awful it appears - it's either that or handler gets bitten, dog gets loose and kills another dog. Also, most dogs figure it out and just stop doing what caused the immediate choke off. Trachea damage and blindness are nice long term side effects that can happen but that's still better than having a dog locked up for life, put down or sedated IMO. As for teaching NO, it teaches the dog stop whatever it was doing, look at you and wait for next instruction. I'm not punishment happy sadist, I'm actually all for counter conditioning bad behaviours but fact is most people don't have that patience and nerves and won't invest time and effort needed to redirect their dog's attention (for aggressive adult dogs it takes massive amount of time).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

SassyCat said:


> I'm not punishment happy sadist, I'm actually all for counter conditioning bad behaviours but fact is most people don't have that patience and nerves and won't invest time and effort needed to redirect their dog's attention (for aggressive adult dogs it takes massive amount of time).


CC is always happening, so the time and effort for it, is for as long as you have the dog, no?


----------



## MariJoy (Nov 10, 2011)

Is this THE John Bradshaw that wrote those books on codependency in the 1980s?

If so, now he's going for "dog psych theory" because it's the new thing that will get him selling books again?...Just askin...

DustyCrockett, I tend to your way of thinking - I think the way a dog thinks is more complex and not so one-dimensional as some theories would have us believe.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

@doxiemommy
What you say is perfectly fine but we're not teaching dogs english. We're conditioning NO to a bad experience through positive punishment. There are also different tones of NO, one that you use in marker training and one that you use to make it clear to a dog that something bad is about to happen. They don't understand our dictionary, they just pick up the tone, you can use whatever word you want. I use NO with my dog on weekly basis and it's crystal clear to him what it means. He learned that rolling in a carcase is not what I appreciate, getting into other peoples yards, eating faeces, chasing cats, people, children etc. I did not say "Fido come" I said "Fido NO" and after several reps he figured that doing those things produces a negative experience. This did not make him fearful, aggressive, reactive or anything, he's a perfectly happy normal dog - it's a vast overreaction and a misconception on people's part when they claim that anything aversive will melt any dog into a useless lump of flesh. Trainers that use "pure positive" methods and escape avoidance system never use NO but I simply disagree with this idea. I find NO very useful in a variety of situations. Hope what I said makes sense.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

With me "NO" was old school, what it meant was simple "stop what your doing now and do something different, if you're peeing, stop peeing, if you're not peeing, start peeing. I know sounds crude but it was very old school. I have mellowed somewhat.

Keep one thought, I was training when the Dead Sea was healthy. Heard something similar on American Idol.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Umn, yeah. Choking a dog down can certainly make a dog "appear" calm. Just curious what "no" is supposed to teach a dog to do? Wouldn't it be more useful to teach a dog how to handle the situation calmly, without you having to intimidate or choke him?


It would be way, way better. The question is, can you teach him to handle a situation, without putting him in that situation? And once in that situation, how do you get his attention?

How about a real world example, how would each of the two schools deal with this.

I'm having this problem now, with an 85-lb 8-month-old, who goes into super-high-excitement mode on-leash whenever we see a dog, either behind a fence or on the streat, leashed or unleashed. I'm convinced it's not aggression cause he plays nice with other dogs at the dog park. It's more an excited frustrated bark. I have no access to his brain when that happens.

What I've tried:
I'm just looking to break the focus. His favorite treat doesn't even do it. All I have right now is, get in front and block him with my body, and hold on until he gradually comes to a sit, an excited sit not a calm one. It takes awhile for him to come back down to reasonably calm. Problem is, we almost never get to that point before the other dog is brought back inside, or led away.

Lately I've been using the leash handle looped into a slip collar, just to maintain control. If I don't have that on him, he's got great handfuls of scruff, which I can use to physically manuver him, but it doesn't get his attention.

So, I either block him like I said, or manhandle him past the other dog at a brisk walk-run. I don't want him to think I'm running away from other dogs. I do my best to maintain an even calm state of mind, it doesn't make me angry or frustrated and I'm not afraid he'll get away or anything, but I do worry what other people think. I just can't help it.

Meanwhile, I have him walking close beside or behind me on a loose leash, getting a tasty treat (chicken!) at random intervals.

We do about an hour before work and again after work; at those times of day we don't get many "challenges." It's actually started getting a little better, in tiny increments.

The way I'm using the leash (wide nylon) as a slip-collar, it's not choking him (not very effectively anyway) but it does help me keep some control. This is a smart pup, not dominant by anyone's definition, intimidation is surely not called for here and would be counterproductive, but I just need to get his attention.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> CC is always happening, so the time and effort for it, is for as long as you have the dog, no?


Not sure that I understand you right... I am not counter conditioning aggression if I expose my dog to the stressor in question and ignore his overreaction. When I pop the leash and yell at the dog, I am indeed CC'ing what I *want* the dog to do.

Effective CC would require lots of engagement, play, toys and plenty of food (just my opinion). It actually takes skill to do this right. It certainly takes more than just having a dog to make yourself interesting to a dog. I'm sure people love their pets but their addiction to quick and dirty solutions or escapism usually win over. Also, to make it clear, I only put choke collars out there as one of the options, I didn't say "go get it because it's super cool" .


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ya, sorry, I'm mixing my terms up. I meant classical conditioning in my comment, not counter conditioning.


SassyCat said:


> I am not counter conditioning aggression if I expose my dog to the stressor in question and ignore his overreaction.


True, this is not counter conditioning. 



> When I pop the leash and yell at the dog, I am indeed CC'ing what I *want* the dog to do.


Not true, unless all you care about is the observable behavior. You can not control the dog's emotional response to an antecedent - it is not voluntary. This is the contention with using aggression to rid aggression...it's not counter conditioning, and the emotional response is, in fact, ignored, in preference for the observed behavior. Dogs, by nature, are equipped to lie (observably) to get out of the situation. This is not the goal of counter conditioning. 



> Also, to make it clear, I only put choke collars out there as one of the options, I didn't say "go get it because it's super cool" .


An I'm not really arguing the use of choke collars. I'm arguing the implication of your statements.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

SassyCat said:


> @doxiemommy
> What you say is perfectly fine but we're not teaching dogs english. We're conditioning NO to a bad experience through positive punishment. There are also different tones of NO, one that you use in marker training and one that you use to make it clear to a dog that something bad is about to happen. They don't understand our dictionary, they just pick up the tone, *you can use whatever word you want*. *I use NO with my dog on weekly basis and it's crystal clear to him what it means.* He learned that rolling in a carcase is not what I appreciate, getting into other peoples yards, eating faeces, chasing cats, people, children etc. I did not say "Fido come" I said "Fido NO" and after several reps he figured that doing those things produces a negative experience. This did not make him fearful, aggressive, reactive or anything, he's a perfectly happy normal dog - it's a vast overreaction and a misconception on people's part when they claim that anything aversive will melt any dog into a useless lump of flesh. Trainers that use "pure positive" methods and escape avoidance system never use NO but I simply disagree with this idea. I find NO very useful in a variety of situations. Hope what I said makes sense.


Here's my deal, though. I REALIZE we're not teaching the DOG English. BUT, a great many people have a difficult time remembering that their dogs DON'T understand ENGLISH (the way we do). So, a great many people use "no" and EXPECT their dog to automatically understand that no means......whatever they want no to mean, like "stop" or "look at me" or "don't do (whatever behavior you mean).

The point of my post was that when most of the people here use "no", they're really using it as an "interrupter", a word to get their dog's attention, NOT to tell their dog anything specific. So, as you say, you could really use any word. You're not trying to get him to understand what WE humans understand about the word, you're just trying to get his attention.

As to it being crystal clear to your dog, it's crystal clear what YOU want "no" to mean, because, from your examples, it sounds like you use it as an interrupter.

My problem with advocating the "teaching" of "no", is it's overused, AND, a great many people think that by using "no" their dogs are understanding that something is inherently wrong, and don't understand why they have to keep using no, because their dog should "understand by now".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Choke collars use a rather simple concept: dog's air supply is stopped therefore its priorities change. This is sometimes only way to manage a situation with large aggressive dog however awful it appears - it's either that or handler gets bitten, dog gets loose and kills another dog. Also, most dogs figure it out and just stop doing what caused the immediate choke off. Trachea damage and blindness are nice long term side effects that can happen but that's still better than having a dog locked up for life, put down or sedated IMO.


What you describe is damage control, not training. And damage control is most often necessary when the handler has badly misjudged the situation or is doing incredibly stupid things. Sometimes dogs associate getting strangled with the presence of whatever causes them to behave badly. In "Click to Calm", Emma Parsons describes how her dog reative dog, after being jerked around by a traditional trainer would start to scan the horizon for dogs if she tightened the leash. I'm not sure that having a blind dog is that much preferable to having a sedated dog. But diff'rnt stroke for diff'rnt folks, I guess.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> My problem with advocating the "teaching" of "no", is it's overused, AND, a great many people think that by using "no" their dogs are understanding that something is inherently wrong, and don't understand why they have to keep using no, because their dog should "understand by now".


With the above I agree, used improperly the dog just becomes immune to the word.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

DustyCrockett said:


> It would be way, way better. The question is, can you teach him to handle a situation, without putting him in that situation? And once in that situation, how do you get his attention?
> 
> .


I love Leslie McDevitt's "Look at That" game. Key is that you have to be able to work with the dog under his threshold, which could be inconvenient if you just want to go for a walk. But worth the time. There are also several physical helps (like a thundershirt or body wrap) which can help a dog stay under threshold. At a distance from your "bait" where the dog can still look away and take treats, as soon as the dog glances, tell him "Look at That!", click immediately and give a treat. If your dog is clicker savvy, the click will interrupt the "look" before it can turn into reaction. If your dog doesn't hear the click or can't take the treat, you are too close, move back (sometimes even a few feet can make a huge difference) and try again. Eventually, you'll see the dog intentionally glance at the target and then back at you. You are teaching a new behavior pattern, and also teaching that approaching dogs (or humans, or whatever) are no longer a threat or something interesting themselves, but an invitation to earn cookies from you. I've seen dogs learn this in just a few repetitions, and be able to decrease the "danger zone" quickly, if the handler is alert and has good timing. On the other hand, if you just allow the dog to stare, it will go less well.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Schools of thought that you mentioned are for dealing with entirely different issues. The "dominant dog" theory is NOT *training*, it is rather an attempt to bring dominant aggressive dogs under some degree of control.
> 
> If your dog shows aggression during walks, train him the meaning of NO and he will probably figure out that what he's doing is wrong. Some dogs have simply learned this behaviour from other dogs, they're not really aggressive, just being idiots.
> Other than that, choke collars solve REAL aggression or first signs of dominance rather quickly, they *force* the dog to calm down and think about what just happened.


That would work great- if dogs thought the way humans do. They don't. They associate. That sort of advice gave me my first dog. He was "trained" to heel by an idiot with a choke chain who would choke Muggsy out every time he looked at something on a walk. So Muggsy learned to associate bushes, patches of grass and telephone poles with panic and pain and hated them all. The first time I took him for a walk, he started viciously barking at a bush. Yes, a bush. Then the grass. Then a fence. It took me a year to untrain all that.



SassyCat said:


> Before trying out implements of destruction on your dog, try teaching NO first. Even if it means embedding news paper on his butt. If he reacts to NO after this then you have done your first successful training session . Before this though I'd do my best to maintain his attention with food, plays, lots and lots of food and more games and avoid things that cause aggression for a few weeks - let him know that you're really an alright and pretty cool guy. I wouldn't train anything during this positive time with the dog.


If you're embedding newspaper in his butt, it is an implement of destruction. And he's not going to think you're alright and cool once you've beat him with newspaper.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat;1129675Trainers that use "pure positive" methods and escape avoidance system never use NO but I simply disagree with this idea. I find NO very useful in a variety of situations. Hope what I said makes sense.[/QUOTE said:


> Calling "bunk" here (for the "pure positive" nonsense). http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

DustyCrockett said:


> It would be way, way better. The question is, can you teach him to handle a situation, without putting him in that situation? And once in that situation, how do you get his attention?
> 
> How about a real world example, how would each of the two schools deal with this.
> 
> ...


Start with a tired dog, after lots of fetching, jogging, whatever. Use a park or field, walk the dog alongside another, start at a distance. Keep walking, giving the dog no choice but to go with you. Slowly get closer, keep a fast paced walk, over and over. Praise when he is walking, not pulling towards the other dog. Play leap frog, get closer still.even aggressive dogs get over this. I do this with DA and HA dogs. Or dogsa with poor leash manners. No need to even correct, and no need to give leash pops, the dog learns following you is better than being pulled.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Calling "bunk" here (for the "pure positive" nonsense).>>>>>

agree, but it is a term I have used (incorrectly to describe a style of training) and there are some who truly believe they are.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> When I pop the leash and yell at the dog, I am indeed *CC'ing* what I *want* the dog to do.





Curbside Prophet said:


> Not true, unless all you care about is the observable behavior. You can not control the dog's emotional response to an antecedent - it is not voluntary. This is the contention with using aggression to rid aggression...it's not counter conditioning, and the emotional response is, in fact, ignored, in preference for the observed behavior. Dogs, by nature, are equipped to lie (observably) to get out of the situation. This is not the goal of counter conditioning.


Actually what you said is exactly what I was trying to put. I said that I would be *CC'ing* the wanted behavior instead of the aggression. When I get all worked up and pissed off and start yelling on my dog I definitely do not condition him to be calm, I counter condition it instead - resulting behavior is the exact opposite of what I want. 
Choke collars counter condition the dog as well but much less so than flat, prong or e collar. They can create avoidance in a dog, but not a calm dog, it's not a cure - just another tool to help somehow manage the walk. You don't pop or jerk these, you hold them firmly above the head until the dog simply gives up - eventually he figures it out and one symptom is fixed, but never the root cause. To fix the root cause, properly, a proper counter conditioning needs to be done.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Calling "bunk" here (for the "pure positive" nonsense). http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988


Thanks for that. I used to think "pure positive" means simply excluding positive punishment and negative reinforcement. But yeah when I actually think about it pure positive doesn't really make sense.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What you describe is damage control, not training. And damage control is most often necessary when the handler has badly misjudged the situation or is doing incredibly stupid things. Sometimes dogs associate getting strangled with the presence of whatever causes them to behave badly. In "Click to Calm", Emma Parsons describes how her dog reative dog, after being jerked around by a traditional trainer would start to scan the horizon for dogs if she tightened the leash. I'm not sure that having a blind dog is that much preferable to having a sedated dog. But diff'rnt stroke for diff'rnt folks, I guess.





SassyCat said:


> The "dominant dog" theory is NOT *training*, it is rather an attempt to bring dominant aggressive dogs under some degree of control


This includes the use of a choke collar. Never I said that chokes are or should be used to TRAIN. I hope I'm clear on that. Yes, I agree, it is indeed damage control. Chokes do not correct anything, they are meant to prevent mayhem before it happens - they should never be jerked or popped.

Also, never I said that I prefer to make dogs blind. There was nerve damage detected on dogs that had choke collar all there lives and is believed to be the cause of partial or complete blindness.

As for newspapers, it was a bit of an ironic example of positive punishment. I'd stick to a strong leash pop. I didn't mean to say that hitting dog's butt for no reason should be done to teach "NO". Also, don't want to encourage anyone to use any punishment really but if you *already* correct your dog in any way then at least associate a cue with it, train him what it means and he'll at least have a chance of avoiding it.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I just wanted to point out a couple things that I've noticed:
Cutting off air supply doesn't matter: I've seen Caeda pull until she is hacking and gasping and her priorities remained the same...Get Over THERE! The collar up high on her (flat or choke) seems to make the biggest difference (paired with lots of treats and clicker), for the purpose of controlling the direction her head is pointed. I'm not a fan of choke collars at all, though I admit we are giving it a reluctant trial run, suggested by the trainer, in hopes that it will be a very short lived training tool. Unfortunately she seems to get beyond her threshold almost immediately out the front door (especially when there is new snow!!!). Not a fan of choke collars but from the very short attempt at using a halti, we could be trying worse options. 

The "No" thing....I use no, and started to before I'd read about how vague of a "command" it is. It has worked somehow though....I think (and I may be very wrong) Caeda has come to interpret "No" as "offer me another behaviour". I tend to use it calmly though, or at worst a bit of a growl. She has also learned that "bad" means "your're about to get a time out" (which is what we used for nipping).


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

With mine, no means "don't do [insert behavior/thing]" leave it is obvious (not too fond of my girls eating dead carcasses uke: a loud "hey!" means "about face & come here" lol. I don't pretend to be a dog "trainer" I focus more on our (yes, mine too) spiritual well being, I want us to be linked at the mind & just enjoy the simple joy of each others company.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Dobry said:


> I'm feeling caught in the middle about this. Not sure what to do because he likes to play tug and the 2 schools of thought differ on this. One would say no because it encourages aggression and you "must win" the game. The other implies that your dog sees you as another playmate and is not out to dominate, especially, if when you let go of the rope your dog comes back right away with it and begs "more more!" (he sees you as a fun playmate). And if you don't engage in tug with him, your dog will simply see you as "no fun".
> 
> Would it be a safe assumption to say that the type of training needed is based on the individual dog's personality?


 Tug is a game dogs like to play. There really isn't anything sinister about it. If you have a dog who really loves it, you can use it to train all sort of things. I use it as a reward for impulse control/stays/tricks/etc: http://youtu.be/Jtvi65jeMdU


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Tug is great  but I make sure they don't get too "carried away" (like over stimulated) during, controversial tho it may be, tug is a game that should have "rules" like any other game.


----------



## zdonBGSU (May 7, 2011)

a lot of what ceasar milan does is still based on learning theory, he may fall on the spectrum of using positive punishment and negative reinforcement more than "positive trainers" that uses positive reinforcement sprinkled with negative punishment, but it works because its based on the same learning principles.

but when he starts to call what he does "pack theory" and "dominance", thats just adding fancy terms thats not really grounded in science. I mean, what is "dominance", what is "positive energy". its very vague and not something you can just tell a trainer "be dominant", or "have positive energy". I know what a reinforcer is, I know what a reinforcement schedule is, and I can show direct results. So there is just a lot of convoluted terminology used in dog training as well as a lot of fluffy "science". 

positive trainers avoid positive punishment because it is stressful to the animals NOT because it doesn't work. What ceasar does work in getting a behavior he wants but it puts stress on the animals.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

zdonBGSU said:


> a lot of what ceasar milan does is still based on learning theory, he may fall on the spectrum of using positive punishment and negative reinforcement more than "positive trainers" that uses positive reinforcement sprinkled with negative punishment, but it works because its based on the same learning principles.
> 
> but when he starts to call what he does "pack theory" and "dominance", thats just adding fancy terms thats not really grounded in science. I mean, what is "dominance", what is "positive energy". its very vague and not something you can just tell a trainer "be dominant", or "have positive energy". I know what a reinforcer is, I know what a reinforcement schedule is, and I can show direct results. So there is just a lot of convoluted terminology used in dog training as well as a lot of fluffy "science".
> 
> positive trainers avoid positive punishment because it is stressful to the animals NOT because it doesn't work. What ceasar does work in getting a behavior he wants but it puts stress on the animals.


Also gets him bit a lot. The thing is, if you are training a dog, and you are having some success, that training has a basis in learning theory, whether you understand why it's working or not. BUT if you do understand learning theory, and are able to formulate a plan, things will go much smoother.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Amaryllis said:


> That would work great- if dogs thought the way humans do. They don't. They associate. That sort of advice gave me my first dog. He was "trained" to heel by an idiot with a choke chain who would choke Muggsy out every time he looked at something on a walk. So Muggsy learned to associate bushes, patches of grass and telephone poles with panic and pain and hated them all. The first time I took him for a walk, he started viciously barking at a bush. Yes, a bush. Then the grass. Then a fence. It took me a year to untrain all that.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're embedding newspaper in his butt, it is an implement of destruction. And he's not going to think you're alright and cool once you've beat him with newspaper.


See an idiot using that method (or any method for that matter) wrongly will ruin a dog, but someone who knows what they are doing (I leash pop on a choker for "looking" not choking them out, that's just bad) & mine are not reactive to anything in public.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion...

>>>Choke collars use a rather simple concept: dog's air supply is stopped therefore its priorities change. 

NO! This is how you kill a dog. This is the method that most choke chain trainers stopped using in the 1950s. They'd jerk the dog so it's feet were off the ground, then wonder why the dog didn't wake up.

The current method, as you mentioned, is to pop the chain. I've met a few trainers who have the timing and the skill. Popping distracts the dog and gets his attention without damage - it's quick, sharp, and released before any damage. I don't like it, I doubt that there are many trainers until 50 yo who can do it, but I can't argue with the results. I think these trainers would be much more effective using positive methods, but those techniques were popularized in the last 30 years.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Tug - I have two main rules - Don't bite me (by accident), and don't run away, playing keep away. Otherwise, when he wins, and comes back for more play...

Additional suggestions for the excited 85-lb 8-month-old: Once he's excited, he's in amygdala hijack and it's hard to calm him. Not a suggestion, but I bet that if you let him off leash, he'd meet and greet, and calm down. You could train a distraction, click your tongue and give him boiled chicken, then click and treat before he sees a potential friend. However, the real reward is to go meet & greet ...so if you could find some friend co-conspirators, you might ask him to sit, while the conspirator comes to say hello... slowly controlling the distance and excitement, and rewarding with the meet and greet.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> NO! This is how you kill a dog. This is the method that most choke chain trainers stopped using in the 1950s. They'd jerk the dog so it's feet were off the ground, then wonder why the dog didn't wake up.


Indeed, late 50's I put a Cd on a Weimie that scored very high on all 3 legs 194 lowest score. She was trained with a choke and was last dog I ever used a choke on. It definitely was the flavor of the day. I did not really like what the finished product looked like. While she was correct, I had just taken too much water out of the ego glass.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

What a difference between 50's and Pierce in 2012 !!!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

hanksimon said:


> What a difference between 50's and Pierce in 2012 !!!


Yes, Pierce is gonna win the "Us Guys championship title" for spoiled dogs. It's for non-choked working dogs.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion...
> 
> >>>Choke collars use a rather simple concept: dog's air supply is stopped therefore its priorities change.
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about training the dog to do something but handling an aggressive dog in difficult situations. I guess there would be "trainers" who strangled their dogs in attempts to enforce a command (probably stuff like out/release) but this is not what I was talking about.

As for choke *chains* they are especially bad and out dated.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

SassyCat said:


> I wasn't talking about training the dog to do something but handling an aggressive dog in difficult situations. I guess there would be "trainers" who strangled their dogs in attempts to enforce a command (probably stuff like out/release) but this is not what I was talking about.
> 
> As for choke *chains* they are especially bad and out dated.


I knew what you were explaining, I never used/liked it cause with a very large dog standing up on his back legs it would take somebody 6 ft 5 to really get proper control or somebody with very long arms. When grabbing lead very close to dog's neck also put wrist/arm areas well within dog's biting range. I have seen CM do this program but he usually ends up also abusing his arms etc with bites. I always preferred being a hurter versus a hurtee. I suppose that also is old school thinking


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> As for choke *chains* they are especially bad and out dated.


There are definitely newer tools out there, and better ones for most dogs. We started on loose leash walking at obedience class the other night, something that has always been an issue with Caeda. Our trainer asked if she could give a try with the choke chain. We told her a short trial run is ok. I was quite surprised at the result the trainer got. One major problem though, that little "pop" where it tugs and releases very quickly is definitely a skill....and not one I'm terribly good at, my husband is a little better but not like the trainer. I doubt we're going to use it since we aren't able to do the pop properly at all. 

My overall opinion on them: Great tool in the right hands (for the right dog), but useless, or even dangerous in the wrong hands.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> There are definitely newer tools out there, and better ones for most dogs. We started on loose leash walking at obedience class the other night, something that has always been an issue with Caeda. Our trainer asked if she could give a try with the choke chain. We told her a short trial run is ok. I was quite surprised at the result the trainer got. One major problem though, that little "pop" where it tugs and releases very quickly is definitely a skill....and not one I'm terribly good at, my husband is a little better but not like the trainer. I doubt we're going to use it since we aren't able to do the pop properly at all.
> 
> My overall opinion on them: Great tool in the right hands (for the right dog), but useless, or even dangerous in the wrong hands.



I've found them very useful to hang plants with.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I've found them very useful to hang plants with.


Or hummingbird feeders


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

doxiemommy said:


> My problem with advocating the "teaching" of "no", is it's overused, AND, a great many people think that by using "no" their dogs are understanding that something is inherently wrong, and don't understand why they have to keep using no, because their dog should "understand by now".


A dog doesn't have to understand something is inherently wrong, it only has to understand that you do not want it doing whatever it is. A lot of folks teach no with a similar meaning as say, "leave it". The dog doesn't need to understand that picking up that rotting rat corpse is inherently wrong, only that you do not want the dog doing it.

I use no as more of a universal "leave it" for any behavior, and my dogs seem to all generalize it very well given a enough time and experience. I don't just use it for things that are wrong, or that I want my dog to never do, I use it for normal behaviors or trained behaviors, as well when I just don't want my dog doing it right then etc. 

But it's not just an interrupter like calling their name, I use it when I already have their full focus and attention as well, and as a marker for an incorrect behavior when training, as opposed to a marker for correct behavior. Like when my dog is presenting a lot of behaviors trying to get that click and treat, it helps to communicate that the behavior isn't what I'm wanting and helps them narrow down to the correct behavior that will get a click and reward.


----------



## Purple (Jan 29, 2012)

Sassycat: Why would you want to "manage" and "handle" an aggressive, or reactive dog? Why not do some behavior modification so they (and everyone around them) have a less stressful living experience. Dogs don't like being reactive and they certainly don't like being coerced by the ones who ought' to be protecting them. I believe simply "managing" these reactive dogs damages the human-animal bond. I believe at some point in these animals lives, they have had to learn how to manage these situations on their own. Many dogs can be quite savvy and grasp the inherent social skills within the species, without any intervention from us. Other dogs, for whatever reason, mishandling, no littermates, poor socialization..etc, have learned inappropriate methods of communication. The most prevalent of these commonly seen catalysts seem to be a combination of poor socialization and weak, or misguided handling/training. All too often when a pup is actin' a fool, people will "add fuel to the fire" and not only intensify the dogs reaction, but habitually reinforce it. Take this hypothetical situation: If a young dog looks to his owner for leadership, see's another dog, get's too excited and starts to yip/scream/bark, or pull furiously on the leash and the owner responds with a swift collar correction, what will the dog perceive that as? I believe the dog will see it as a negative occurrence as do most people. However here is the grey area that we are debating; will the dog associate the pain with his inappropriate actions, or will the dog associate the pain with the stimulus he is fixated on? My opinion on the matter is that the former is a variation of anthropomorphism. Dogs do not rationalize the same way as humans. Though the concept may make sense to use, I believe dogs are entirely more likely to associate the stimulus with the negative event.

So the next question is, with these reactive dogs how can we teach them to be calm and use appropriate communication with other dogs and people. What can we do beyond damage control? I know you say you condition a negative event with the verbal cue "no", but what would you do if you suddenly lost your voice - how then would you go about teaching the dog? What if you had a mute and deaf client that came to you for help, what kind of exercises would you suggest to them for behavior modification? ETA; a more common situation would be; how would you train a dog who was both deaf and reactive? This is a good question for clicker trainers as well. 


To me, a mutually respectful relationship between person and dog is ideal. I want my dog to see me as a solution, not a problem. When my dogs are uncomfortable with a situation, I want them to look to me for guidance instead of taking matters into their own paws. I never want my dogs to fear my reaction, ever. I want my dogs to trust me. By teaching the behaviors I want, careful socialization and of course, consistency I am able to foster a wonderful relationship. My dog's are reliable, well mannered with people and dogs, they're learning a variety of neat tricks, they love learning and they know that irregardless of the situation I will always protect them. From me and my support network, the have/will learn the tools they needs confidently face the world.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

TxRider said:


> A dog doesn't have to understand something is inherently wrong, it only has to understand that you do not want it doing whatever it is. A lot of folks teach no with a similar meaning as say, "leave it". The dog doesn't need to understand that picking up that rotting rat corpse is inherently wrong, only that you do not want the dog doing it.
> 
> I use no as more of a universal "leave it" for any behavior, and my dogs seem to all generalize it very well given a enough time and experience. I don't just use it for things that are wrong, or that I want my dog to never do, I use it for normal behaviors or trained behaviors, as well when I just don't want my dog doing it right then etc.
> 
> But it's not just an interrupter like calling their name, I use it when I already have their full focus and attention as well, and as a marker for an incorrect behavior when training, as opposed to a marker for correct behavior. Like when my dog is presenting a lot of behaviors trying to get that click and treat, it helps to communicate that the behavior isn't what I'm wanting and helps them narrow down to the correct behavior that will get a click and reward.


I see your point, and I agree that it can be a successful marker for things you want stopped, to a point, but, my main problem still is that many people who don't have much experience will use "no" as if their dog should always understand that that certain behavior is wrong, as in all the posts we here like "he KNOWS it's wrong to do such and such because we tell him "no"."


----------



## Purple (Jan 29, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> I love Leslie McDevitt's "Look at That" game. Key is that you have to be able to work with the dog under his threshold, which could be inconvenient if you just want to go for a walk. But worth the time. There are also several physical helps (like a thundershirt or body wrap) which can help a dog stay under threshold. At a distance from your "bait" where the dog can still look away and take treats, as soon as the dog glances, tell him "Look at That!", click immediately and give a treat. If your dog is clicker savvy, the click will interrupt the "look" before it can turn into reaction. If your dog doesn't hear the click or can't take the treat, you are too close, move back (sometimes even a few feet can make a huge difference) and try again. Eventually, you'll see the dog intentionally glance at the target and then back at you. You are teaching a new behavior pattern, and also teaching that approaching dogs (or humans, or whatever) are no longer a threat or something interesting themselves, but an invitation to earn cookies from you. I've seen dogs learn this in just a few repetitions, and be able to decrease the "danger zone" quickly, if the handler is alert and has good timing. On the other hand, if you just allow the dog to stare, it will go less well.



I think this is sound advice!

Also, please look into buying Brenda Aloff's book "Aggression in Dogs". It will show you step-by-step proven methods that will help you not only manage, but modify your dogs reactive behavior. It is worth the small investment, the book is a wealth of knowledge and will give you some invaluable tools for working with your pup.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purple said:


> To me, a mutually respectful relationship between person and dog is ideal. I want my dog to see me as a solution, not a problem. When my dogs are uncomfortable with a situation, I want them to look to me for guidance instead of taking matters into their own paws. I never want my dogs to fear my reaction, ever. I want my dogs to trust me. By teaching the behaviors I want, careful socialization and of course, consistency I am able to foster a wonderful relationship. My dog's are reliable, well mannered with people and dogs, they're learning a variety of neat tricks, they love learning and they know that irregardless of the situation I will always protect them. From me and my support network, the have/will learn the tools they needs confidently face the world.


For the deaf dog question, I would train pretty much as any other dog, except with a visual marker, and extra attention on check-ins. True story: Yesterday I had a private client with a very leash reactive little dog. Once I was convinced she understood the clicker, we started playing Leslie McDevitt's "Look at That" game. We started with a small stuffed dog, which was still a little concerning to her. Then we went to a bigger, more realistic stuffed dog at a distance, gradually working her closer. Then we went o my dog Alice, also at a distance. In about 45 minutes, the dog was able to hang out with her owners, about three feet from Alice without any of the anxiety she'd demonstrated towards even the small stuffed dog. Now, I don't mean to say that this dog is "fixed." but it sure was a nice start to give her another way of dealing with dogs when she's on leash, and we talked about strategies to help her people deal with it as well - arc-ing when approaching, emergency retreats, and don't share the dog's reactiveness (LOOSE leash) For people who say clicker training is too slow on behavior problems, I have to disagree.


----------



## Purple (Jan 29, 2012)

I would do the same with a deaf dog. What visual marker would you use? In my mind I'm picturing a "pop-up" clicker type mechanism. I imagine it would need to be something that would quickly grasp the dogs attention, so as to actually mark the behavior. This is off-topic, sorry for rambling!

I agree with you about the accelerated learning of clicker trained dogs. I have seen what you have described with my very eyes. Though I'm not yet a dog trainer, I have had the opportunity to witness this method in action. It really works. It's as if a language barrier is suddenly broken. Truly remarkable. 

That's not to say the "traditional" (and I say that in the context described in this thread, as there are many forms of "traditional" dog training) way of training doesn't get results. But I would hope animal lovers would see training as more then just a means to an end. I think the delivery of the message is just as important as the message itself. Not to mention their seems to be a limited set of tools in many traditional trainers bag of tricks. This often leads to merely managing an undesired behavior instead of changing it. 

But to each their own, everyone see's the world through different eyes....


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> I see your point, and I agree that it can be a successful marker for things you want stopped, to a point, but, my main problem still is that many people who don't have much experience will use "no" as if their dog should always understand that that certain behavior is wrong, as in all the posts we here like "he KNOWS it's wrong to do such and such because we tell him "no"."


Ain't that the truth! I know "no" to be temporary, because every dog I ever said "no" to, would go back to that behavior soon as my back was turned, sometimes sooner. Still, it has its uses, despite being vague. My dogs have never had trouble finding something else to do when told "no." In fact, I've found it doesn't really matter what word you use, any random clipped syllable will work just as well. In fact over time, a simple hand gesture will do, or even a look. Unless of course it's a particularly fun activity. Dogs have no problems figuring out that you don't like what they're doing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purple said:


> I would do the same with a deaf dog. What visual marker would you use? In my mind I'm picturing a "pop-up" clicker type mechanism. I imagine it would need to be something that would quickly grasp the dogs attention, so as to actually mark the behavior. This is off-topic, sorry for rambling!
> ....


Interesting idea. We usually just use a "thumbs up"


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Purple said:


> I would do the same with a deaf dog. What visual marker would you use? In my mind I'm picturing a "pop-up" clicker type mechanism. I imagine it would need to be something that would quickly grasp the dogs attention, so as to actually mark the behavior. This is off-topic, sorry for rambling!


I would likely use some type of hand gesture, nothing big maybe a quick opening and closing. Something you can time well that is fast.

Or you could even use an eyebrow raise. Dogs are quite good at picking even tiny facial expressions up if you can use them consistently enough. And not much would be cooler than a dog who is deaf, but is seemingly responding to your very thoughts when in actuality it is cued by a small lip gesture, eye blink, raised eyebrow or cheek twitch. Folks have been teaching dogs and horses to take cues like that for a long long time.. Most of the animals who do amazing tricks like addition and subtraction such as horses and dogs and such are trained that way with cues that are very hard for people to see happening but easy for a dog to pick up.


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Interesting idea. We usually just use a "thumbs up"


I've used a light like a white light laser pen successfully also.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I use a choke chain to walk my dogs at times... simply hooking both round ends to the same leash clasp to make a collar that's REALLY easy to snap on quickly for potty walks at 3 am. My dogs sleep naked and it's much easier than fumbling with a collar buckle in the dark. It's impossible for the chain to constrict at all and it is NOT for dogs that will back out of collars because it hangs really loosely, but when used like this it is no different from a flat collar. It's the ONLY way I would use one.


----------

