poodlefan

His house, his rules and you should respect them. However, sleeping inside in a crate might be more acceptable.

I do that. My brother knows I won't ever stay with him if I have the dogs with me. He's an "inside equals spoiling dogs" kind of person.

Biggest problems with extender leads are: * Many are poor quality * They get used by folk who don't understand their limitations. I hate it when people give their dog the length of the lead amongst other dogs - result is often entanglement/nylon line burns. I prefer the ones with tape. * Attached to halti's they are just plain wrong. I've heard of a dog on an ORDINARY lead who was killed by a car because the owner wasn't paying attention. And I'm sure most of us have heard of a well trained dog that died because the owner thought the training would ALWAYS be enough.

Sounds like its time to make some friends who share your interest. Join a dog training club.

But interestingly, PIAA don't say that they are not without substance. Lets see them back up that claim with money back guarantees, health guarantees for inherited defects etc. As if. BIG qualifier. Lets not forget that there's more than a couple of vets that run puppy factories either. Puppy factories ARE the supplers you knobs. Show me the lifestyles of the dogs that produce your puppies, put your hands on your hearts and tell me that these dogs lead decent lives. We all know otherwise.

The pup is actually quite cute in person with lovely eyes but it is definitely not a good-looking dog. Sad for this puppy but I am really, really hoping that the lack of 'prettiness' in the mix makes the puppy farmers/pet shops decide to drop using Kelpie in their DD mixes ... Sadly that will never work for poodles If that pup is still there on Easter Thursday, I'd say they'll be just about ready to give it away. That's how a friend of mine got her petshop mix. She'd have been PTS after that.

By cross examining you. I'd be looking to prove that as a use of force trained police officer with training in non-violent conflict resolution that when yelled at by an old guy than you reacted in anger rather than fear for your safety. I'd rate my chances.

Mine too!

And your proof is... ? Quite a number of years charging people with various assaults. I'm not talking about charging. I'm talking about defending using the "sefl defence" defence. What happens to others doesn't alter the particular circumstances of this event unless its going to your state of mind. I'm talking about you justifying as "reasonable" physically assaulting someone calling you a useless pr*ck of a dog owner. Where's the threat? And under the circumstances, haven't you received training in non-violent conflict resolution? And haven't you had use of force training?

And your proof is... ? Clocking someone for calling you a knob and telling your to put your effing dog on lead is going to be a hard argue as "self defence". And yes, I have read the Crimes Acts a few times. So Shepherd, this person yells those things at you.. at what point do you decide that a person standing within a two metre range calling your dog ownershp into question constitutes a "reasonable threat" to your safety. And at what point do you decide that clocking them is a "reasonable response" to that abuse?

Ummm, that argument only works if you are not the first to give a 'smack to the head', otherwise I hate to tell you this, but you are the antagonist, yelling or no yelling, which was kinda my point when I asked "Are you for real?" Escalating to physical violence just because someone yells at you is NOT ok. Look, I really don't want this thread to go off on a whole new tangent, but... If someone comes up to you and you have a genuine fear they will assault you, then you have every right to strike first in self-defence. You do not have to wait for someone to hit you first. Also, don't get confused with someone simply yelling abuse and someone coming right up into your face in an aggressive stance/posture and yelling abuse. Actually you don't. If leaving, or some other non-violent method of avoiding conflict is available, lawfully you are required to do that.

Criminological studies indicate otherwise. Link to studies here These are not studies, much more akin to gossip and second hand reports. What exactly is animal cruelty? Killing healthy adoptable pets (like the proponents of bsl advocate)? The greatest mass murderer in history was a vegetarian and loved animals, kinda like a PETA clone! Punish the perpetrators for what they do, not what they may do. You're saying that surveying violent criminals/crime for evidence of earlier animal cruelty is "gossip" Ok. What evidence would satisfy you? Lets leave Hitler out of it..and lets not forget he tested his preferred poison on his German Shepherd before taking it himself.

Criminological studies indicate otherwise. Link to studies here

Neither does your average exhibitor. The point I was making is that sexual entirity isn't automatically analagous to aggression. If the issue is at the owner end of the leash then a surgical solution to the problem isn't going to be very effective. And in your situation, desexing would probably have been a good idea. BUT (and its a big but)... Not every entire male is a handful and desexing doesn't guarantee no aggression, no fence jumping, no roaming and no cancer (except of the testicles for obvious reasons). Do you think the kind of owner who doesn't consider obeying desexing laws obeys registration ones? Personally I reckon the Pareto principle probably applies as equally to dog owners as it does to anything ie: Local government spend 80% of their animal welfare budgets on the 20% of owners who are irresponsible/ignorant or indifferent (or all of those). If that's the case, then taking a broad brush to these issues will be ineffective. Passing new laws about desexing will see the responsible comply and the rest ignore them.

And in the ACT, any dog over the age of six? months that isn't the subject of an entire dog permit would be desexed. And look how well that hasn't worked.

oops double post

LOL... I can say this is actually true....given my heritage and propensity to listen to the pipes some dogs do not like them at all Someone started up near an agility trial in Sutherland some years back.. the sound of howling dogs soon drowned out the pipes!

Not what I'd call a good representative cross section of dogs. Most responsible dog owners I know don't use dog parks. I often walk Howie in a group with about 5 other entire boys and there are no issues. One would think, using the logic that entire male = aggression that dog shows would be a rolling dog fight with ribbons handed out. Seems to me there's more fighting and posturing at shows by handlers than dogs. In my breed, any aggression between males beyond a hard look would be considered to be indicative of poor temperament. Mind you, most exhibitors manage their boys well. At dog shows entire males are also expected to be shown with bitches in season present.

Sounds like harmless (if expensive) fun to me. People spend way more than that on hobbies. At least there's no pretense that this is anything other than having found her dog a friend.

Anyone in your area taken up the bagpipes? That'll do it. At what time of day is the howling occuring?

That's Beloved Supreme Leader please

My guess is it will return and that a course of pills will fix it again.

One of my older dog books (English) dates from the 1950's. The author regards desexing as the lazy way out of the responsibilities of managing dogs and frowns upon surgical solutions to issues that can be solved with good management. My, how times have changed. Or have they? I support desexing but I don't support the idea of desexing as a panacea for the problem of unwanted dogs OR as a compulsory solution to the that issue. Put the word "mandatory" in front of most animal welfare solutions and you'll find the same folk who manage their dogs responsiblity will cope another requirement and those who don't give a damn will continue on as usual. Give me education over legislation every time. The fact that the same folk who advocate for mandatory desexing chafe at any legislatively mandated standards and activities for private dog rescue deserves some reflection. I wonder how those proposing this petition would like to be legally bound to quarantine all dogs in appropriate facilities for 21 days and to be legally liable for any damages caused by a newly rehomed dog. I'll tell you this though. If the solution to the issue of unwanted dogs was as easy as a new law, my guess is we'd have those laws already. As it is the laws we've got don't work now. Show me a program like the ASPCA has that takes mobile surgeries out to the public and does "while you wait" free desexing and I'll support that to the hilt. Remove yet another public right to choose how and when (and even if) dogs are desexed and I won't. In the meantime, lets not kid ourselves that the primary motivation for desexing dogs is the best interests of the individual animal undergoing the surgery. Oh and for the record all my non-show dogs are desexed.

Tandoms tow better and back easier but you'd be looking at a custom job for 4 berths and under I reckon. For a six berth wardrobe job, I'd definitely be looking at dual axle.

I'd be looking at my budget and maybe doing private lessons with the instructor you like.