poodlefan

Lots of breeds love coursing... including poodles! Here's my Darcy having a run (see below) asa, its on at Erskine Park in Sydney on 10 April... there's a thread here somewhere about it.

I hope to make it up from Canberra... just gotta organize a travelling companion (human)

Roo and wallaby offal/poo can carry hydatids.... as does sheep poo/offal. If you worm your dog, you can feed it. To be on the safe side, feed roo processed through an approved facility. Human grade roo is even safer but expensive.

Sugar: Why? Most emu meat is farmed. To me that's no different to eating beef (and I don't). Roo's are hardly endangered. If the animal is farmed and/or slaughtered humanely, I don't see why an indigenous species can't be eaten.

Fantasic result Mischiefwolf!!! :D :D I'd use white vinegar... would have a bit of a bleaching effect too - great for enhancing white markings. Not sure the judge would appreciate your exhibit smelling like a potato scallop though. ;)

Sounds like a photo opportunity to me!

Can't see why not... maybe just feed in small amounts as it might be quite rich. Gee, imagine the size of the necks and the drumsticks

I read the thread title and thought it might have been about a fat dog. Can't help you on the hair issue. Unless you want to try an old horse owners trick for getting hair out of rugs, saddle blankets etc. Soak dog overnight in a bucket of water with a big dash of vinegar.

I tend to use sausage, cheese, cabana and roast chicken but the key is to change your treats around.... dogs get bored with the same thing. I'd put roast chicken as my dog's favourite though. :rolleyes:

PQM: You say "perfectly aware of what is required". I say, "not proofed to perform the recall under higher levels of distraction". We look through different windows at the world of dog training PQM. I can respect that your views are different but remain concerned at the level of 'harshness' that you consider appropriate in some circumstances. I see dog and handler as a team, each with their own responsiblities. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen dogs held responsible for not reacting to poor signals, late signals etc, both in obedience and agility. To me the handler always retains responsiblity for cueing the dog at the right time and in a way that allows the dog to perform at its best. I am NOT averse to physical corrections and I understand enough of your philosophy to see that you do not 'punish' as the correction is applied unemotionally. We will have to disagree on this points - but I can accept that your methods would work in some circumstances. However, I'll make my original point again. Long lines, abrupt stops and whippets are an extremely dangerous combination.

PQM: Actually PQM, you have misinterpreted my advice, it has nothing to do with the dog's intelligence and EVERYTHING to do with the training. When something goes wrong in training, I look first to the HANDLER to see if that is where the error lies whereas your approach is to place the responsiblity for non-performance on the dog. My advice was based on the fact that the handler says the dog was reliable for a short recall but the loop got added when the distance got further out. I take this to mean that the dog has not learned that the recall means 'come sit in front of me REGARDLESS of how far you run'. By taking it back to where the dog was reliable and slowly increasing distance I am training the dog to succeed and not to fail. To 'correct' the dog in the way you suggest puts all the onus on the DOG for making a mistake while assuming none as the handler. Not my style. This is a dog that is learning, not a trained dog. I seriously would not stand on a long line for a dog that is probably running in excess of 40 km an hour and with a breed that frequently suffers from broken limbs due to accidents whilst running at speed. The minimum result from doing this to a whippet will be that the dog would somersault in mid-air when the brakes were applied. I respect the dog too much to risk permanent injury or death from such a 'correction'. I certainly don't see it as a response to a dog 'having a bit of fun'. I would be even less willing to do it with a breed for whom ANY recall is a big plus. Believe me PQM, I know when a dog is blowing me off - and I blame myself and not the dog when it happens. I just don't see harsh physical corrections as an appropriate response to my own training short comings.

Katie: I'd suggest you go back to the distance at which he fronts reliably and then work slowly out again, sounds like he hasn't quite got the idea yet. Reinforce the front with what ever motivates him.

PQM: Or perhaps take him to the vet. With a light boned, long necked dog like a whippet running at speed and hitting the end of a 20ft line, there's quite a good chance you'll injure him. Yet another training method I can't condone.

K9: It ain't the dog's mistakes that frustrate me K9, its my own numptiness... why oh why didn't I keep up with my childhood ballet lessons - it would have made learning agility turns so much less painfull.

So Sidoney, you come from a horsey background too? I had horses for years before I had dogs - I think it has had considerable influence on my training philosophy and methods. Old Poodlefan saying... "dont train angry" Doing it to a horse can get you dumped on your head (or in my case, bum)

Yep. I'm pretty even tempered but I do get frustrated. That's more likely to result in me making mistakes and that's when I stop training or at least move onto a different task. Sometimes a bit of time out for me and the dog allows the session to continue. I've shed tears of frustration before... not a good look.

PQM: Point taken PQM - she knew the dog. That the trainer know Salty would not bite her is evident from the second quote I posted. She clearly knew how to evaluate dogs well. Knowing the dog would not bite and employing such tactics seems little more than bullying to me regardless of the motivation for the technique. It also seems to me to be taking advantage of the dog's inherent good nature. A different dog would have attacked her.. and she wouldn't have used this method on such a dog. OK - but that doesn't make it right. I recognise that mine are value laden judgements and that my values differ from yours PQM. I can think of dogs that would have been quite scarred by that kind of treatment and perhaps this is the point you are trying to make about dogs that want to work? That they cope with this kind of treatment and work regardless? Maybe it comes down to how we view our relationships with our dogs and what we want to achieve with them. What does concern me is that it seems that the dog's actions are only viewed by this trainer as being generated by internal motivation rather than as a reaction to other issues such as stress, boredom or lack of exercise. Maybe I missed that. Nonetheless, this is not a method I can condone.

PQM: Yup! Unless by then she'd 'broken their spirit' as she admits is possible. But hey, if you don't believe me ask K9. There are dogs in this world PQM that will NOT tolerate this kind of physical correction. That doesn't make them inherently aggressive - they just have a kind of self esteem that leads them to conclude they don't have to put up with this kind of crap... Other dog's may submit... but wait their chance to take out the handler... poorly trained protection dogs do it all the time. Physical dominance over a dog is not always possible - I'd have loved to see her try this method on a horse..... not possible. Sorry, but the absence of retributive thought doesn't change abuse into correction for me - I'll just have to disagree with you on this one. Edited to add - I wonder how the pointer's water work went after that - I'd have thought she'd avoid it like the plague.

OK PQM here's Hearne's explanation of the 'water' training: Sorry but I find that utterly repugnant and totally unjustifiable whatever the philosphy behind it. The fact that the dog's head isn't held underwater doesn't improve the situation for me A different dog would have attacked her in defence well inside of three weeks IMHO. Edited to add. From earlier in this story: That just compounds it for me...

PQM: So what DID she do? I've had a look at that site... still checking stuff out. I saw the book on Bandit - that gets very mixed reviews too. Hearne's references to treating dogs with "syrup" is giving me insight into your dislike of food rewards.. can't say I agree but there you go. Not a fan of the clicker, that's for sure.

PQM, I'm just reading some reviews for Adam's Task.. one reviewer states: I've heard of this 'training' method before but didn't realise Ms Hearne was the 'trainer' involved. Is this true - did she do this?

PQM: As it should be - and makes for more rigorous discussion. I will check it out thanks PQM.

PQM: I'd be batting out of my league then so will stay away (besides, did you see the VOLUME of posts ) but I'd hope that being an experienced trainer didn't close anyone's minds to new ideas. Sometimes questions or opinions from the less experienced cause you to rethink assumptions.

PQM: So approval and feedback can motivate but are not rewards? - I really do think this is a matter of semantics. What can shape behaviour can also motivate and reward IMHO - its how and when its used that determines this. I'd say that approval and feedback are more powerful motivators to some dogs. I think it really depends on the dog, its drives and how instinctive the work is. Some dogs are highly motivated by praise, some by games and some by food. Surely the job of a good trainer is to find out what works best for individual dogs rather than to try to motivate every dog in the same manner. I have three dogs and only one of them is really motivated by food. I use praise as an immediate reinforcer and either food or toys as 'end of work' rewards or jackpots. Bear in mind that the food or toy doesn't have to be on me or with me for the dog to perform as desired. I don't believe in a a 'one size fits all' method of training for every dog. It certainly doesn't work on people! I know plenty of obedience trainers who look down their noses at people who use food as a motivator. However, to suggest that positive reinforcement with food requires constant bribing with treats is inaccurate. Phasing out the lure and moving to intermitant rewards is the manner in which training is reinforced and enhanced.

PQM: That's certainly not where I have been coming from PQM. I said that get a dog to work at a task that does not bring its own reward, and to ask it to use its instincts in a manner chosen by its handler and not itself, will require motivation and reinforcement. Given that the vast majority of trainers will not train high drive dogs for tasks for which they have been selectively bred, I find a more general method of training the focus of my research and practice. Frankly most 'pet' homes are wholly unsuitable for the type of dogs you describe. I'd still be interested in what you use to motivate your own dog for obedience work.