abed

I don't agree with your concept Cosmolo although I understand the angle you are coming from, but in my way of thinking from a training perspective it's wrong. Walking can be a great way to bond with a new dog providing the dog has some handler focus, if not, I see it as more conflict with a distracted dog interested in everything but the owner who is restraining the dog physically to prevent the dog rewarding itself by doing it's own thing. The owner gets angry because the dog won't respond and the dog misbehaves more to achieve it's goals, just a poor scenario that you see daily on the average suburban street. Some inexperienced owners do have trouble with timing which is true, but as a trainer I see the priority is to teach them timing and how it's done effectively because people are not as stupid as some trainers like to think they are, sure they may struggle initially, but in one lesson a good trainer should be able to teach the basics in loose leash walking and provide some education to make a difference IMHO. If a rescue dog has limited training especially a big dog all over the place, I will often use a prong collar straight up with treat rewards, handle the dog myself with the owner along side me for the dog to learn some basics which most learn quickly, dog and owner. I don't see that using a management contraption teaches anything of value long term and definitely doesn't teach a new dog owner how to train the required behaviours wanted of a general pet. Most pet owners want the same thing, a loose leash walk and a recall generally being the highest priority and working towards that goal from a training approach IMHO is what we should be working towards and the rest is of secondary importance. I'm a supporter of prong collars however I can not re-home a foster dog with one and I don't believe they are suited to all dogs, a very good trainer said to me, a dog chooses its' collar, start on a flat and then progress up until you come to the tool that works best for that dog. So, how about you do your thing and I'll do mine. You've actually rail roaded my thread and I politely ask you to step away from it now. Oh please sas, I haven't railroaded your thread at all. Like Nekhbet, I have provided another angle on the situation to consider, you don't like that angle and have told us both now to nick off I have used the front clipping harness and IMHO it's a useless piece of equipment that manages behaviour and doesn't teach either the owner or the dog anything of value. That is my experience with it which is what your thread asks for.

I don't agree with your concept Cosmolo although I understand the angle you are coming from, but in my way of thinking from a training perspective it's wrong. Walking can be a great way to bond with a new dog providing the dog has some handler focus, if not, I see it as more conflict with a distracted dog interested in everything but the owner who is restraining the dog physically to prevent the dog rewarding itself by doing it's own thing. The owner gets angry because the dog won't respond and the dog misbehaves more to achieve it's goals, just a poor scenario that you see daily on the average suburban street. Some inexperienced owners do have trouble with timing which is true, but as a trainer I see the priority is to teach them timing and how it's done effectively because people are not as stupid as some trainers like to think they are, sure they may struggle initially, but in one lesson a good trainer should be able to teach the basics in loose leash walking and provide some education to make a difference IMHO. If a rescue dog has limited training especially a big dog all over the place, I will often use a prong collar straight up with treat rewards, handle the dog myself with the owner along side me for the dog to learn some basics which most learn quickly, dog and owner. I don't see that using a management contraption teaches anything of value long term and definitely doesn't teach a new dog owner how to train the required behaviours wanted of a general pet. Most pet owners want the same thing, a loose leash walk and a recall generally being the highest priority and working towards that goal from a training approach IMHO is what we should be working towards and the rest is of secondary importance.

No-one has said that, what they have said is that the odds are against you if that is the choice you make. BTW, taking aspirin involves risk management too. If you fit a certain profile, the risk of not taking it outweighs the risks of taking it. So no, I didn't take an aspirin today ;) I'm 33 and I play a lot of sport. Can I tempt you with a beer then . I am not talking no socialisation, I am talking or should I say, I should be talking about the period when the pup is most disease vulnerable to keep the thread on track for the OP. 14 weeks until you put the pup on the ground for a full socialisation process I don't think is a huge problem manifesting itself to wayward dog to be overly worried about. You can take the dog out for a drive, carry it etc, but if you want it belting around the park and playing with other dogs before the vaccinations are supposed to be kicked in, be careful, than can easily pick up disease that can send a puppy prematurely to bridge. I would prefer to work on some training to overcome a lack of early socialisation if that's the case, than not having the puppy lost through disease that I may have been able to prevent, is the crux of my opinion ;)

Risk management. Not socialising a pup carries the greater risk by far. The risk of getting it wrong is relatively low, genetics plays a large part in how that turns out, and not socialising that pup would almost guarantee a problem. You just have to be sensible about it. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/146321/1/kate_vbjcar_abstract.rtf (a longitudinal study) Did you take an asprin today Aidan, science claims it reduces the onest of cancer....................tomorrow there will someting else, perhaps a beer with a bit of luck I know where you are coming from, but I can't see with the variables thown at us from my experience that I can say 100% that unless you socialise early, you will end up with a crappy dog, not even close for me to make that an absolute fact.

Spend some time with a pup/dog and you can start picking the behaviours that stem from just lack of training and guidence and those that come from lack of being socialised properly, if at all, to a situation. I dont 'blame' which is the point. But I like to give a dog the best start in life it can get. Why make problems when you can avoid them with a little effort spent socialising them. That's the problem..............you can't really tell as so many variables come into play when dealing with an unwanted adolecsent or adult behaviour that has surfaced. There are always exeptions to the rules to throw a spanner in the works???. Like the '08 WUSV champion dog was a rescue aquired at 18 months no training whatsoever, beat all the dogs raised specifically for sport???. How many advocate than unless a sporting pup is raised a particular way, you are wasting your time???. Too many curved balls IMHO to really judge the difference all things taken into account

Ignore the science at your peril. http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/ima...cialization.pdf Depends who's science you prefer Aidan. The science to best avoid parvo and other life threatening diseases in a small vulnerable pup works best for me I was more referring to what we know about critical periods. Arguably, 14 weeks is already leaving things a bit too late and I certainly wouldn't leave it any later. There are differing opinions on how best to manage the risk, but setting up safe, sensible situations where pups can experience and deal with new things is regarded as one of the most important things you can do in the life of the pup. There has been a lot of research and it all points in the same direction, this is not just a matter of opinion. As a trainer Aidan, you would have seen both terrible and good dogs from both factions I am sure.............I know I have, so to be conclusive irrespective of science studies in the real world is difficult to determine the truth of things. I have seen some really bad dogs that were unsocilaised early as pups, and some really good one's and vice versa, gee whizz, it's not as simple and set in stone as it looks

Vaccines are not 100% effective either. My dog was vaccinated and still got parvo. If you're that paranoid about parvo lock your pup in a bubble since you can bring parvovirus into your house on your shoes especially after some dew or rain. It can live in the soil just in your front yard, back yard or heck anywhere! No pup is safe! you can rediculously paranoid about it or you can be SMART about it and put your dog in a carry bag and take it to places not frequented by a lot of dogs like beaches and dog parks. Other dogs are locked up away from the world, their owners go to work 5 days a week, puppy preschool 1 hour a week and think their dog is fine. Probably not too bad, some terrible, others fine. I should have kept the dog I had here - unsocialised up until 10 weeks of age then socialised after. Terrifying animal, almost like looking at a feral dog. Probably an extreme example but it's not to be sneezed at. I have seen too often, the same behaviours exhibited in both socialised and unsocialised dogs and I am sure you would have too Nekhbet???. The usocialised one's a lack of socialisation is blamed for the behaviour. With the socialised one's, incorrect socialisation techniques are blamed for the behaviour. Unless the socialisation proceedure is conducted to absolute perfection, it can be good or bad so we walk a fine line along with expose to disease thrown into the mix also to contend with. Rottweillers are predisposed to maternal antibodies interferring with immunisation and many Rott breeders are playing with different vaccination routines to try and keep them safer, not a good example using a Rott contracting parvo which I guess is the pup you are talking about???. There a plenty of other things than can be achieved with a pup until they are traditionally less vulnerable medically and focus exercises and leash walking basics around the yard over those few weeks is one of my favorites. Plenty of herding and farm dog's I have seen have never been socialised at all, with impeccable obedience as adults, you wouldn't know the difference. I guess though, ute aggression, touch the ute and I will kill you may be result of anti socialised behaviour

Ignore the science at your peril. http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/ima...cialization.pdf Depends who's science you prefer Aidan. The science to best avoid parvo and other life threatening diseases in a small vulnerable pup works best for me

Ignore the science at your peril. http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/ima...cialization.pdf Depends who's science you prefer Aidan. The science to best avoid parvo and other life threatening diseases in a small vulnerable pup works best for me

Of course, but we are talking socialisation versus disease vulnerability is the OP's predicament and 14 weeks until some confidence from immunisation becomes relevent isn't going to make any difference to the dog long term. If the dog is that crappy in temperament to need the early socialisation you speak of, that presents another issue doesn't it really???.

I dont agree at all. Pups need exposure to the world and to learn about it while they're still in critical period not after when they're crazy loony unsocialised little terrors. You have a small maltese. Put it in a carry bag and carry it around when you go out, take it on car trips etc. Socialisation is VERY important and keeping a dog locked in the backyard until 12 weeks of age is ridiculous. Just be smart. Until the second vacc dont let strange people go touching it, putting it under the noses of dogs that you dont know or go to dog club/dog beaches all the time etc. Simply let people know 'sorry we'd love you to have a pat but he's not immunised enough' or offer them some alcohol hand sanitiser. I'm in the process of helping socialise some pups, they were out of the house before 8 weeks of age, going everywhere in the car etc. Both are healthy and happy but we're smart about who we let touch and where they go. Are you telling us that you have never done a job where puppies were socialised in the traditional methods, were still little terrors and the owners didn't know why when they did everything by the book Nekhbet???. Most of the "little terrors" I have worked with and some dog aggression issues were socialised in the traditional way from puppy school and are often booted out of their obedience classes for poor behaviour when I get them for retraining. More poorly behaved young dogs have been socialised traditionally than one's that haven't in my experiences and these supposed critical periods IMHO are well over exaggerated. I still maintain that a pup missing a few weeks of socialisation and kept safe from Parvo in the vulnerable periods where they can catch it easily is a better experience than a puppy crossing the bridge from over enthusiasm for socialisation and exposure to unhealthy elements in the process IMHO

I'm not going to say no to an awesome family because they have trouble picking up correct timing for a check chain or half check in one session. Wow, sorry but that comment was so rude and uneducated from someone whose meant to be fairly educated in training circles. I don't think very many foster carers even give training on a training aid/tool for the new families, I do because I think it's important. What you consider 'basic' others do not. Learning how to Heel a dog is the single hardest thing many dog owners have problems with so I think you need to take a step back with all your training savvy attitude and experience and remember what it's like for someone whose never trained a dog to heel - timing is not something that comes easy to alot of people - just the same as clicker training - it's a timing thing. How about you go and tell all those clients of yours who come to you to learn to heel their dog to re-home their dog because if they can't even grasp a 'basic' concept they shouldn't have the dog........sounds rather silly doesn't it. I agree with Nekhbet's perspective and if more people took her approach, the whole dog scene would be better off for it IMHO. It can be difficult for some people to train a dog to walk nicely on leash and the founders of these management tools like harneses and halti's know this also and capitalise on this from a commercial perspective designing and selling contraptions to supposedly make an average dog owner's life easier. But these contraptions are not training tools and long term they don't achieve a training goal of resulting in a well behaved reliable leash walker. Nothing IMHO works better than proper training and really if people are not prepared to do some proper training and learn how to handle a dog, it's the same as letting people out on the road who want a car who are not prepared to learn how to drive one effeciently. It's not that there is a lack of trainers or training classes available and personally I think that passing and holding a basic obedience licence or certificate should be part and parcel of dog ownership. Dogs come in all shapes, sizes and drive/strength levels and there is a dog out their to suit most people if they are matched up properly

I have to be honest to say that I have a problem with traning and behavioural endorsements/qualifications issued by private enterprises like the NDTF, Delta, Bark Busters etc where people completing their courses use these endorsements in marketing to the greater community to portray that they hold a formal and recognised qualification in a similar vein as one would attain as a Tafe College or University graduate achieving a trade or profession. In fact, it's misleading to the public IMHO to believe that these certifications provide an official level of recognised competency in an industry that the public then assume is regulated by legislation which it isn't. NTDF is a formal government accrediated program, I believe one of the Delta programs is also government accredited. There is the NDTF CertIII, but I was actually thinking more of the franchised outlets that conduct a 2 week course. However, certificates are not trade qualifications as such in unregulated occupations, like anyone can call themselves a qualified trainer/behaviourist ligitimately, but you can't call yourself a qualified hair dresser or accountant without the relative schooling and credentials.

Hi Katie P This traditional socialisation process to allow a pup to run around and interact with other dogs is a bad idea IMHO which leads to poor behaviour in maturity as they find more value in other dogs than they find of you. Socialisation really means for a pup to be aware of other dogs and to ultimately ignore them as the dogs you see barking and jumping at the end of the leash in an uncontrollable state of excitement wanting to play with other dogs is the result of the traditional socialisation people recommend necessary. Puppy socialisation unless strictly supervised can also cause behavioural problems where softer puppies can be dominated by harder and larger puppies resulting in dog to dog or fear aggression in maturity and the list goes on. Having said that, young pups are vulnerable to disease before immunity kicks in and personally, I never allow a pup until 2 weeks after their 12 week shot to wander around anywhere other than my backyard and the pups health IMHO has far more importance than socialisation procesess that expose a pup to potential risks.

I have to be honest to say that I have a problem with traning and behavioural endorsements/qualifications issued by private enterprises like the NDTF, Delta, Bark Busters etc where people completing their courses use these endorsements in marketing to the greater community to portray that they hold a formal and recognised qualification in a similar vein as one would attain as a Tafe College or University graduate achieving a trade or profession. In fact, it's misleading to the public IMHO to believe that these certifications provide an official level of recognised competency in an industry that the public then assume is regulated by legislation which it isn't.

I don't like off leash dogs either, because you don't know how much control the owner has over them and often especially walking your own dog encountering one off leash, they see my dog and bolt towards us and the owner has no recall on the dog and things from there can easily get out of shape.

You can send it to the State body where you live. As for having to transfer the dog I know in Qld the rules state that it has to be transfered within 14 days of the dog changing owners and it is the responsibility of the person selling the dog to ensure it is done. You also don't need to be a member to have a dog transfered to you. Thanks Dracdog, appreciated

What happens if the pedigree certificate was issued in another state???. Would you send it to the issuing Kennel Council or your own state council to do the transfer???. I was asked that question the other day, not sure of the correct answer???.

Would have to agree with this. I had a discussion with local authorities on something similar (at the time all hypothetical regarding school kids teasing our dogs on our own property) but the general drift was if the dog was provoked and was defending then a prosecution would not stand. Problem then becomes how can you prove the dog was provoked. Basically it comes down to your word against the idiots. Pity sometimes that dogs can't speak. When a dog's on leash which is usually 2 metres by regulation, it provides restrained personal space for the dog to habitat which no one needs to encroach upon and getting that close to a restrained dog is provocation in it's self. If you are in a confined space like an allyway or small foot bridge where a leashed dog could reach people that could not escape the range of the leash, it might be a different story if a leashed dog bit someone.

Jacqui835, when the dog is on leash, they have no escape path being restrained if things get nasty which heightens their defense drive being the reason why the dog will act more hostile on leash than off in a threatening situation. If the dog was ON LEASH and did bite that idiot, it may have been a good lesson for him to rethink his own behaviour towards someone's dog.

Generally if the dog is on leash and bites someone if provoked, you are fairly safe against prosecution. If the dog is off leash you have a major problem at hand.

The Pug owner must have followed the dogs to see where they went I assume???. Just trying to work out how the ranger ended up at your place when the neighbour didn't know them to tell the Pug owner where they lived???.

If owners of 'working breeds' think that their dogs will be any match for a fit, aroused dog of fighting ancestry then they are clearly deluded. "Smaller" dogs have lower centres of gravity and better proximity to the areas that disable a dog - namely the legs. Clearly some 'working dog' owners need to pull their heads out of the sand and realise that their dogs aren't designed for fighting other dogs. It's alarming the amount of working dog owners who have high expectations of their dog's ability to defend against other dogs.

Sorry - I really don't know what to make of this. A "highly trained protection dog" is trained to protect it's handler or property from PEOPLE. They don't go to a dog fighting ring boot camp! I would imagine that in many circumstances a protection dog which is highly dog reactive would be a big fail - for example Police work where dogs may need to be close together in crowd control situations, highly charged, very excited if they turned around and had a go at each other that really wouldn't be in the job description would it. The point is, people with large or presumed tough dogs don't always take adequate precautions to protect their dogs from possible injury from attack on the basis that their dog can handle it's self which owners of working breeds often express that. The incident I mentioned, the GSD owner saw the other dog running around loose and barking, but preceeded to walk past the dog with a false sense of security that his protection trained dog would sort things out and didn't need to be cautious of the other dog especially being a lot smaller than his GSD also??? From this incident, I always tell people owning presumed tough dogs that off leash dogs can attack and cause injuries and regardless how tough they think their dog is, off leash dogs are best avoided where possible.

I think it's a reasonable request by the council. Your dogs getting out perpetuated all the events that followed. It's irrelevant were the pug was (lawful or not) in regards to what has been set out by nuisance dog order. The only thing I'd be looking for is vet evidence in regards to puncture wounds on the pug in case something happens again and your dogs are declared DD's with a history. The OP is looking at it in the sense that the report was generated because of the Pug owner's regulation breach. Had the Pug owner not had their dog on the beach and complied with the rules themselves to create an incident, the nuisence order would have not eventuated. All things being fair, the Pug owner should also be prosecuted for their breach aswell.