Luke GSP

I'm not walking off, :laugh: turning to be in front of dog and praising if he stayed in place, which he did, stepped back, up to a maximum of two steps, he was fine at the turn to face, but was creeping on the step backs, after about 5 minutes he wasn't creeping anymore (keep in mind that the dog in question is about 3 so not a puppy (which i probably should have said before hand ) we got him a few months ago.

My thoughts exactly "hence" why I always walk back and reposition. It's not at a certain point, should have said earlier, but this is the first day training the sit/stay with this dog. I trained my GSP's this way and they are pretty rock solid even under high levels of distraction and they don't creep in any way.This little cocker however has a fantastic level of enthusiasm and he vibrates for most of the time that you are trying to train him, so just wanted that by pushing for the spot on behaviour wasn't going to kill his enthusiasm :) Just wanted to see if other people accepted a little "sloppiness" at the off and then tightened up. The reasoning behind me accepting no movement is that I have always believed in rewarding the spot on correct behaviour and correcting anything else :) making 100% sure that the dog knew what was right!

Hi all, just a quick one, when you are first teaching stay, do you stiil reward even if you see a little "creep" or only reward when sat in the one spot with no creep? My little cocker is so excitable that sometimes when in a sit/stay he will slide on his bottom about an inch for each step backwards that you take. personally I mark it with "no" and then walk back and slide him back that inch. Obviously when he does not creep I mark with "good" and reward once i get back to him. Just wondering how strict you are when working through training this command? Are you a little more forgiving at first and then try and "tighten" up later on, or go for the exact behaviour from the off?

Thanks Wobbly, very interesting :)

The same disciplines that I would associate it to as well, I sometimes wonder if "drive training" works due to the fact that it drills in to a very natural thing for a dog to do, see something moving and try to catch it, (artificail senario) hence why it (the training) is such a motivator? Where as in the gundog world, the dogs activities are literally doing it for real, hence you shape the behaviour in to the way you want it approached rather than trying to "teach" the action. It seems to me that the work of the gundog is in reality very much in line with TID, The gundog being taken to the game grounds (drive initiation), being allowed to quarter and hunt flush (drive build) retrieve drive satisfaction (the dog got its mark)

Thanks for all the advice, To be honest, it wasn't something that I was considering using, (my cocker would smash through a concrete wall to get to a bit of chicken so I know what motivates him)I just wondered why you rarely hear people in the gundog world talking about training "in drive" in fact quite often when you try and discuss it with them, a lot of them miss the point, saying "ÿou can't train in drive, your dog either has drive or it doesn't!" In regard to the work being the reward, I totally agree, however when you are trying to nail the basics, I think sometimes a little bit of motivation can help stop the dogs attention wandering ;-) saying that though, I suppose that is my fault as I should have stopped the game before it got to that point

Thanks Nekhbet, have you ever encountered or do you believe that there might be any issues where the drive training with a tug might create a hard mouth situation?

My one reservation with training in drive using a tug toy for instance (assuming toys and prey drive were your dogs thing) is there a chance that you might diminish their drive when hunting/quartering? Is there a risk of you diminishing the potential reward of the hunting activity due to the height of the toys reward level?

Just wondering, in regard to drive training, (using a toy to initiate drive for example) with the aim of gaining the subconscious imprinting etc, is it an applicable method for gundog training? The reason I ask is that I was thinking about it the other day and it occurred to me that if you are using prey drive, and you are encouraging the dog to "hunt" surely the act of hunting (scent, sight etc) is increasing the level of drive, then the flush and hopeful retrieve is the drive satisfaction? So would drive training(in its stand alone training method) work in this scenario? or is the scenario in itself training in drive? Hope that makes sense. :)

Sorry Cassie, Not wanting to highjack the thread but I will also be interested in the answers, I have two pointers and a cocker spaniel, the pointers are easy, but grooming the spaniel is a pain in the bum, as I am 6 foot 2 inch and bending down to groom him is a pain, so I currently stand him on a table but would love some tethers to keep him standing in a good position and negate me having to use our BBQ table :) Hopefully someone can help both of us.

That is about the wishy-washiest answer you could have come up with. Which system do you refer to? Not the government one surely? Since we should not rely on the government to fix our problems? Now you're implying (without definitely saying so of course, so you cannot be called out on your contradictions) that we should play political games to convince the powers that be that what? What exactly are they going to do? Not enforce the existing leash, micro chipping and containment laws, as would be sensible? No? What then? The Government won't "fix it". They have not been given the correct motivation, strategy or avenue to "Fix it". Do you honestly believe that they see this latest attack as a failure of BSL? Or evidence that the BSL net may need to be cast wider? I think that where you are getting confused is the distinction between government and the system of government. The Government "fixes nothing" until the system of government is engaged and presents both the question and the answer to them that will enable them to gain an advantage. None of the DOL self elected BSL expert panel present a question or answer that would fit that criteria. Anyway, I better go and have that lay down and a hot drink as suggested earlier, as I think it is quite clear that what I have to say is of limited interest to any of the contributors as they know heaps about BSL and how to fix it. Just ask them.

Actually, we don't. The absolute majority of Bull Breed (remembering that this term encompasses AT LEAST three breeds and their mixes if you are being conservative about the term) are good dog owners, love their dogs, and their dogs NEVER cause an issue. "I am the Majority" The percentage of dogs that attack *of all breeds* is so incredibly small. It is minute. This INCLUDES Bull Breeds. You are infinitely more at risk getting in your car every day than living next to a dog. The hysteria perpetuated by the media and people like yourselves is unhelpful and certainly does nothing to prevent dog attacks. There are proven solutions to reducing dog attacks even further, and our Government currently ignores them. Those solutions have nothing to do with breed. Simple as that. We don't need restrict breeding, we don't need to ban breeds, we don't need to license breeders, we don't need to license owners. We simply need to follow the proven models of dog management, which focus on education and licensing first and foremost, and follows it up with strong enforcement of basic dog management legislation. It's so simple yet it seems to be so hard to grasp by Governments and individuals - even on a dog forum. The Calgary Model You didn't take the full scenario did you, you chose to focus in on a single piece that you could counter argue. The rest of what you posted had no real value, sorry. Regardless, I didn't feel the need to quote it all as my discussion about proven models of dog management addresses all of your 'issues'. Well if your all sorted then, why are you on here whinging about it? Oh that's right, because your "proven models of dog management" aren't in Australia? And by going on to forums and sitting in your ivory turret, firing arrogance and dismissive comments, as the holder of the all powerful knowledge to solve the worlds problems is helping get the Calgary model implemented how? I really don't understand what it is you are trying to argue here. You seem to just want to argue, without any real point or meaning. Yes, my issue is that it isn't implemented here. I don't want to be bitten by dogs. I don't want my dog to be bitten by dogs, and I care about community safety, so I find it incredibly frustrating that Australia persists with models that are proven not to work. I also find it incredibly frustrating when I see people on a dog forum making comments as ridiculous as yours and some others. You would think there would be a higher percentage of people who have done their research on this forum but it doesn't seem to be the case. You have no idea what I do in my spare time re: the BSL issue, so probably best to not make silly comments on that. I will tell you that two weeks ago I returned from a 3.5 week trip to the USA attending conferences and internships with the experts on the subject, to gather information and develop a path for progressing the advocacy work going on here in Australia. There's plenty more I have done and will continue to do so I think I have every right to make a post on a dog forum with my opinions on the subject. Even if I had done none of that, I still have every right to post. And You have no idea what I do in mine, I won't write a chest beating diatribe in an attempt to give my opinion more weight than yours, but I thought the problem was changing the political perspective, not design a solution as there is the Calgary model which seems to tick most boxes. Oh well, with all your anti BSL background you seem convinced that you are more than equipped for the challenge as you see it. Go forth and best of luck!

In my opinion this is a well reasoned argument. Well done. So how do the two of you suggests this is done? I have previously asked this question of Luke GP (three times actually) What do you suggest we do, that is not illegal? What I suggest you do, is understand the system, work within the system and formulate a case that appeals to the system. Then again, why would anyone want to listen to me, I'm not an expert on dog attacks or propensity to bite statistics, and what I am discussing is just about politics, and it would appear that most are happy to accept that government, BSL and politics are nothing to do with each other? Seems a strange view to me. Maybe some more people slicing and dicing posts on internet forums, presenting advantageous information as an answer to a question that was never asked and dismissing evrything else will be the seismic event that rocks the seat of power enough to actually reach in to their pockets and do something that works? The first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one!

Actually, we don't. The absolute majority of Bull Breed (remembering that this term encompasses AT LEAST three breeds and their mixes if you are being conservative about the term) are good dog owners, love their dogs, and their dogs NEVER cause an issue. "I am the Majority" The percentage of dogs that attack *of all breeds* is so incredibly small. It is minute. This INCLUDES Bull Breeds. You are infinitely more at risk getting in your car every day than living next to a dog. The hysteria perpetuated by the media and people like yourselves is unhelpful and certainly does nothing to prevent dog attacks. There are proven solutions to reducing dog attacks even further, and our Government currently ignores them. Those solutions have nothing to do with breed. Simple as that. We don't need restrict breeding, we don't need to ban breeds, we don't need to license breeders, we don't need to license owners. We simply need to follow the proven models of dog management, which focus on education and licensing first and foremost, and follows it up with strong enforcement of basic dog management legislation. It's so simple yet it seems to be so hard to grasp by Governments and individuals - even on a dog forum. The Calgary Model You didn't take the full scenario did you, you chose to focus in on a single piece that you could counter argue. The rest of what you posted had no real value, sorry. Regardless, I didn't feel the need to quote it all as my discussion about proven models of dog management addresses all of your 'issues'. Well if your all sorted then, why are you on here whinging about it? Oh that's right, because your "proven models of dog management" aren't in Australia? And by going on to forums and sitting in your ivory turret, firing arrogance and dismissive comments, as the holder of the all powerful knowledge to solve the worlds problems is helping get the Calgary model implemented how?

Actually, we don't. The absolute majority of Bull Breed (remembering that this term encompasses AT LEAST three breeds and their mixes if you are being conservative about the term) are good dog owners, love their dogs, and their dogs NEVER cause an issue. "I am the Majority" The percentage of dogs that attack *of all breeds* is so incredibly small. It is minute. This INCLUDES Bull Breeds. You are infinitely more at risk getting in your car every day than living next to a dog. The hysteria perpetuated by the media and people like yourselves is unhelpful and certainly does nothing to prevent dog attacks. There are proven solutions to reducing dog attacks even further, and our Government currently ignores them. Those solutions have nothing to do with breed. Simple as that. We don't need restrict breeding, we don't need to ban breeds, we don't need to license breeders, we don't need to license owners. We simply need to follow the proven models of dog management, which focus on education and licensing first and foremost, and follows it up with strong enforcement of basic dog management legislation. It's so simple yet it seems to be so hard to grasp by Governments and individuals - even on a dog forum. The Calgary Model You didn't take the full scenario did you, you chose to focus in on a single piece that you could counter argue.

It's the government's job to create laws that will actually do what they are intended to do. What makes you think that I and every other responsible owner of "targeted" breeds have not being doing everything we can to protect our chosen breeds - both from crazy governments and irresponsible owners? That in a nutshell is the problem, you feel that it is their job to create laws that will actually do what they are intended to do, however modern politics is about creating laws that give the "public" the "sense" that all is well and the government is on the case. Passing a new law is cheap and has the required effect (it makes the public feel safer ) actually changing an outcome through proper management, costs money and takes time. No government wants to invest money (a negative on their balance sheet now)in to a scheme that will have an upside that comes to fruition in the next governments term in office.

What the hell is your post about? I usually find your posts confusing, but this one tops them all. And I find your back handed sarcastic comments unhelpful and utterly unproductive. Perhaps they are a perfect demonstration why the bully community is found questioning its support on forums like this? As you seem to prefer to attack or try to discredit rather than develop support, educate and promote? If you find the above statement beyond comprehension then I suggest that you ignore my posts, in an attempt to save you the time to try and understand them, and me the time trying to explain it to you.

So on one hand you feel that the government are failing but you feel that it should be their job to save your breed type, not yours? The Australian government is arguably one of the most backward thinking thinking governments in the entire world when it comes to controlling or managing an issue. If a fine doesn't work, make the fine bigger. If an animal is not desirable, eradicate it. (even though eradication is impossible) if illegal gun crime is on the rise, tighten up your gun laws on the legally held firearms, If refugees are arriving on boats, tow them back because they didn't come through the proper channels. (did you expect them to get a passport, visiting visa and buy a qantas ticket? without their persecutor noticing?) Best of luck with that.

The Problem is, that the arguments used are always on "selective evidence" Everytime there is an attack the Bully type owners go in to overdrive demanding the exact breed, full pedigree and DNA result in an attempt to distance their specific breed from the incident. Everytime there is an attack the Bully type owners roll out the usual arguments regarding bite propensity and dog attack statistics. Everytime there is an attack the Bully type owners demand complete accuracy in all details whilst "choosing" which pieces of the story to focus on (The ones that either discredit the identification or show that the person is not a dog fight, attack or Bull breed expert) These are not the issues, they are fantastic arguments if you wish to turn a thread on a forum to custard but in reality they will do little to counter the public or governments standpoint as in reality they do nothing to address the real issue. The public do not care about the breed to demonise it, they care about the breed as they are trying to grasp factors that were present at the incident in an attempt to make sense of it and build a library of similarities in a bid to be able to identify a similar situation and avoid it themselves. it is a perfectly natural occurence and it is basic learning for threat avoidance. If people started to get killed by falling trees, they would ask what type of tree, where, conditions etc etc. The public do not care about bite propensity, they care about the affects of that bite. Very few people are concerned about mosquito bites but lots are afraid and concerned about snake bites. very few are scared about lizard bites, but they would be very bothered about a saltwater crocodile. There is no licencing for water pistols yet machine guns are banned, why do you think that is? are you starting to see the pattern? The public do not want to have to become dog fight, attack or behavior experts, much the same as they have not learnt how to diffuse or identify an IED, Render safe or identify an AK47. They accept that these things should be kept out of the public domain and hence why should they need to have that knowledge? The issue, Bully breed owners, is that you would appear (unfortunately) to have within your ranks, a high percentage of owners who are irresponsible dog owners, who buy a dog because it looks tough and like it could easily "Smash" another dog or rip someones arm off, who then seem surprised when their "nanny dog" does exactly what they wanted it to look like it was capable of doing, It mauls, injures or kills another dog or worse still a child or adult human. Now, as we have established that these people are irresponsible, there is no surprise that they will buy the dog from their mate Dave, Daves got an awesome dog that drives round in the back of the ute protecting his tools, yet is like a cuddly toy around his kids, and has just had a litter with one of Daves mates dogs. Then should it's official breed be "banned" try and register it as a similar looking "non banned" breed. Which basically means that they are going to undermine and destroy ALL of the Bull breeds by association. Now please note, I am not saying that other breeds do not have irresponsible dog owners,(Note read the entire paragraph and process all the factors equally, do not just pick on the factors that can be transferred) very few people buy a cocker spaniel, maltese, whippet, yorkie, scotty, etc etc as a statement of how tough they are. Very few of these dogs are as capable of causing the level of damage as efficiently that a bull breed could, or with the same level of "gameness". (if they could, they would have been used for bear/bull fighting, dog fighting etc instead)Very few of these dogs would be registered as a different breed in an attempt to avoid attention. (hence should one cause harm, what it is registered as is the type of dog that it is) The bull breed community needs to get it's house in order, stop throwing mud at everyone else and stop trying to fight an argument using facts that in reality do not pertain to the actual concern.

i am pointing out the accuracy of the description that the dogs jaw was locked on to something, people on here were demanding accuracy. So for you to say "I don't care what each actual word means" may well be part of the issue. Rather than choosing words, descriptions, theories and ideas that suit you and representing them as FACT. Maybe you should take more care about what each ACTUAL word means. Maybe then you wouldn't be attacking someone that took the time to respect the english language enough to acknowledge what the words actually mean. It's not science, it's english. The dogs jaws could not be removed from their hold, ergo by definition they were locked on. Simples!

Idiot. What hope have we got when supposed experts don't even know what they're on about? Were did you get that the vet said 'lock jaw' from? She certainly did not use that term during this interview. The journo said 'lock jaw'. Were you "ranting" when you made that comment? It did appear you did not like the term used. So to ask what term is acceptable to you does not elicit a reply as to what is. Can you only find the word "dog" or "ranting" in your dictionary? :laugh: I already said accuracy is important. There is no such thing as lock jaw. maybe a definition is accurate enough for you? lock 1 (lk) n. 1. A device operated by a key, combination, or keycard and used, as on a door, for holding, closing, or securing. 2. A section of a waterway, such as a canal, closed off with gates, in which vessels in transit are raised or lowered by raising or lowering the water level of that section. 3. A mechanism in a firearm for exploding the charge. 4. An interlocking or entanglement of elements or parts. 5. a. Sports A hold in wrestling or self-defense that is secured on a part of an opponent's body. b. A secure hold; control: The distributor has a lock on most of the market. c. A sure thing; a certainty: His promotion is a lock. v. locked, lock·ing, locks v.tr. 1. a. To fasten the lock of: close and lock a drawer. b. To shut or make secure with or as if with locks: locked the house. 2. To confine or exclude by or as if by means of a lock: locked the dog in for the night; locked the criminal up in a cell. 3. To fix in place so that movement or escape is impossible; hold fast: The ship was locked in the ice through the winter. She felt that she had become locked into a binding agreement. 4. a. To sight and follow (a moving target) automatically: locked the enemy fighter in the gun sights. b. To aim (a weapon or other device) at a moving target so as to follow it automatically: "The pilot had locked his targeting radar on the slow-moving frigate" (Ed Magnuson). 5. To engage and interlock securely so as to be immobile. 6. To clasp or link firmly; intertwine: locked arms and walked away. 7. To bind in close struggle or battle: The two dogs were locked in combat. 8. sounds to me like if the dog had a secure hold on the person and could not be removed to say it had its jaw locked on is pretty accurate? wouldn't you?

Hi all, I was just sitting there yesterday chatting to a mate of mine who has recently moved him and his dog to the UK from Australia, and it started me thinking. If a dog has a winter and summer coat, asuming that the winter one is thicker, when a dog moves from the south to the north, do their coats get "insync" with the new seasons? Is the winter coat a winter coat through timing or does a dogs coat just naturally grow thicker when it is cold? Hope that make enough sense that someone that knows more about these things than me can shed some light on the subject. :)

Most people don't know the difference between an AK47 and an M15 but they know that they are dangerous and want some form of protection from the government that is charged with protecting them. What the public know is that some guns (out of water pistols spud guns and firearms) make a loud bang and tend to have a negative outcome for whatever they were pointed at when the bang happened. The problem is not about the publics grasp of the finer points of dog identification, The problem is that dogs that are capable of causing extreme harm and death are in the hands of idiots. Now, as pointed out, we don't live in a nazi state and hence cleansing society of everyone that is deemed an idiot (not sure how you would measure/quantify that analysis though as I have met some extremely intelligent intellectual idiots) is probably out of the question, what target do you reckon the government will go for? It will be the dog type that is the highest common denominator in the types of attack/outcome that the public find the most distressing. That dog type is not smal, white or fluffy, it's not one of the gundog or "agricultural working breeds". In regard to the monster of a lagotto, please remove that picture before it gives people nightmares!

I haven't attended a dog training class in years, puppy or otherwise. Yes all the dickheads will be flocking to class so they can get full registration of their dogs - not! you reckon there aren't a heap of irresponsible idiots out ther behind the wheel of cars, trucks, boats etc etc. making someone regurgitate information to pass a test to get something, doesn't mean they will implement what they regurgitated. If it did, there would be no sex offenders in the church, no drug addicts on the street (most schools have a drug education program) no teenage pregnancies (most schools have sex education) No alcoholics, no addicted gamblers. Education on the whole only makes people that would probably not have been the problem anyway even more sure that they won't become a problem. D#ckheads are D#ckheads simples.

All very nice ideas, but in reality, the majority of people do not see the issue as dog training, lets be clear on this PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF THEM OR THEIR LOVED ONES BEING TORN APART, MAIMED OR KILLED BY DOGS, Nothing more, nothing less. The vast majority of dogs, well behaved or not, well trained or not, are not involved in attacks that end up in fatal or near fatal injuries to humans on a regularly recurring basis. What is the most common denominator in fatal or near fatal attacks, that it is possible (acceptable in the general publics eyes)to be legislated against or controlled? Not saying that I agree with the natural conclusion by the way, just being a realist.