poodlefan

Bundy sounds like a candidate for a heated dog bed!!

Yep, dog coats. For warmth go for the softer types, not the all weather ones.

Take her to a decent canine chiropractor. Changes in fur can indicate underlying issues impacting on circulation.

You've got yourself a fierce little resource guarder. I suggest you seek experienced professional help with this one. If you tell us where you are, we may be able to recommend someone. In the interim do as much as possible to decrease her anxiety about her food. My number one tip would be to feed her in a crate and leave her alone while eating. If you have children, then summon the professional help and buy the crate TODAY.

I have already provided references to the NSW legislation that enables police to enter properties in that state and in particular in response to incidents of domestic violence. Legislation will trump case law every time unless a court reads it down. No one's calling you a liar Jed. In this case you are simply misinformed.

I would regulate the food intake, increasing the percentage of fat and protein in the diet. Probably the easiest way would be to switch normal kibble to a power or performance variety. For a raw fed dog, I'd be switching to fattier meats and increasing the meat component of the diet.

Most show schedules have a line: "Cheques to be made payable to...... " Usually its the club but check the schedule. If it doesn't say I'd make it payable to the club.

Apparently they can become more aggressive as they hit adolescence Perhaps that's the reason he's been handed back now. At least he was returned. Other options don't bear thinking about.

They've found the missing Tamarin. Linky to story

"you people".. lovely. This isn't Facebook or RSVP. It's a dog forum. I think you pointed that out earlier. I don't have to accept your point of view when it appears motivated by an agenda that has bugger all to do with dogs. I certainly don't have to accept your point of view when its factually inaccurate. Witness your statements about police having no greater right of entry than the public. I think blocking your posts will be a better course of action. I'm not into rewarding attention seeking behaviour, particularly when the 'victim' card is played by a person on the losing side of a debate. Maybe it is for those who never leave the shelter of the educational system. I got my last honours degree in my 40's. I'll await some condescending remark about mature aged students now.

Well some of us dupes who agree with Jeff actually have more education than you so there goes that theory huh PW. You might think that the posters here are a bunch of pink velour wearing shut ins, but you'd be surprised at how many PhDs are here and how many think you are wrong on just about everything that comes from your fingers. So next time you are tut tutting at us, the great unwashed mass remember that some of us are way ahead of you in tertiary education I only have two Honours degrees. I are unedumacated.

Your words not mine. This is one policeman, but I admit he is no Robinson Crusoe. That doesn't mean I think the majority of Police are 'plods'. And you have no right making such an insinuation. Which is all I can see in most of these threads. Insinuation and innuendo. And the adolescents you besmirch may not be as sophisticated as some adults, but either do they share their corruption. Trust me, I had no intention of besmirching any adolescent. Half arsed opinions based on limited experience and bugger all facts are their right. But now I have no right to make such an insinuation? I thought this was a forum for 'lively debate". Now you want to tell me what I may or may not post? Within forum rules I may post any damn thing I like. The only person with the right to dictate what I may or may not post is Troy. However, if you don't think the majority of police are 'plods' then why so many posts denigrating them? These are your words, not mine. Yep, posts dripping with respect for police. Riiiight.

Errh! It's a forum. An open discussion on subjects of public interest. That's what you do. You take a position. The absence of lively debate would make it a dictatorship. You shouldn't let you prejudices colour your responses or let yourself get rankled by arguments that weaken your own position. You should follow your own advice.

I agree. Given that offleash control appears to be an issue, the handler wouldn't appear to have a dog as advanced in its obedience training as the handler appears to believe. Proofing that at a lower level class would be a good goal.

Given that you know no more about the actions or motivation of the dog than those of the police officer involved, one wonders why you felt compelled to chose a side at all. These things are rarely black and white. Yet you delivered verdict on the IQ of the police officer, of NSW police officers generally and of the adequacy of NSW police response procedures and police training. When advocating, it pays to be in possession of more than a large chip on one's shoulder where law enforcement is concerned. "All cops suck" is an attitude understandable in an adolescent but not in someone supposedly more mature. A dog that sends someone to hospital for facial surgery when he goes to open a gate is one I'd be reluctant to advocate for on a dog or any other forum.

You shouldn't sell yourself short Vickie -nice round! This is the kind of distance handlers aspire to have their dogs work at.

A shift from running beside a handler to working independently of handler positon is more than weaning off a lure. If you're happy and your handlers are happy then these are just differences of opinion. Are any of your handlers trialling yet?

Of course a dog can be retrained.. but why not start as you intend to go on? Its not so much about weaning off cues as giving the dog the skills and confidence to work at distance. Tying the dog to your side may teach handler focus when most agility trainers are working on teaching independent obstacle completion off handler cues. They want to wean the dog away from the handler ASAP because its the most challenging thing to teach. They also want maximum speed ASAP. So they expect basic focus to have been achieved off obstacles. That allows for faster progress on them. How can a dog drive forward if it can't be more than a lead's length from the handler? It can never be anywhere other than next to or on the same side of at the obstacle the hander is near. No lead outs and no sending. No rear crosses on contacts or tunnels - basic trialling moves. And no independent contacts and weaving - arguably the most time consuming to train and the most time saving on a course. A dog on a lead is guided to every obstacle when many trainers are aiming to get the handler out of the picture as soon as possible. Level 2 dogs at my club will send probably 10metres to a tunnel while the handler changes direction - and the dog's are powering into and out of them. Dogs taught to run beside the handler and handlers taught to run around every obstacle DO struggle - to make time beyond Novice. I train Novice triallers a fair bit. I have to encourage them not to babysit their dogs to obstacles, to RUN flat out, not stand flat footed at points on the course and wait for their dogs and these are people trained offlead from the get go. I think quite a few new handlers are surprised that they are expected to sprint, not trot between obstacles and to perform almost balletic turns at speed also. My guess is we have different views of what "decent speed" might be. What's the old agility adage.. if you've never fallen over on an agility course, you're not going hard enough. ;)

can't resist playing devils advocate here ;) after watching some of the top (world team) Europeans lately, I was surprised at just how many of them do blind cross on course. They train it AND they pull it off! Well! In fact they break lots of our rules with spectacular results sometimes. I have been known to throw the occasional one in & have even planned a couple. It's something I want in my toolbox but rarely use. At this point I have only ever planned or used it when my dog is in a tunnel and can't see me anyway. I'd still not recommend them to your average handler... and that's most of us. See - two agiliteers equals two opinions.

Yep, the obstacles are the easy bit ;)

I understand that this is your, PF's and even the opinion of others who are more versed in agility than I. I am swimming against the tide, it seems. But I will still assert that working agility with your dog can actually assist in improving other aspects of dog training including increasing focus. I have no problems if anyone wants to change the name of what we do because of the fact we intro it 'on-lead'. And I'm not seeing any reason why the dogs that are now in the higher level have been disadvantaged by their 'on-lead' intro. ..... sorry, what can I say ;). But I do acknowledge that you guys have obviously seen these problems. I've not recognised them within our classes though. Many problems won't be apparent or an issue until or unless the handler and dog enter the trialling ring. Its one of the reasons we encourage new handlers to steward.. so that they can see what they're training to achieve. I guess most of us have seen the sport evolve from "heeling over obstacles" to what its now become. Its still a young sport but training methods have undergone a revolution. I guess some of us have evolved our training styles from that early idea to want to establish foundations that see the dog moving at speed, with obstacle focus and more remote handler guidance from the very beginning. It can be a real challenge to train the dog to focus on what's ahead of it while the handler changes distances and sides. Locking the dog close to you and guiding it with a leash in the beginning doesn't do that. Its my belief that its better for dogs and handlers to start out using methods that you intend to trial with. However training in unfenced public places adds an additional safety dimension to the issue - something we don't confront at my club.

I haven't heard her expressing a problem ;). Like I said, I don't know that she spends a lot of time focusing on it. And in the opportunity I had today to observe some of their lesson, I didn't see that happening. But cheers for the heads up . I've had handlers swear to me they'd just front crossed when they've blind crossed. As the result is the same, some can't tell the difference at first. However a turn that requires you to lose sight of the dog isn't a great idea.

I know our Instructor is familiar with a few variations on different training techniques. I remember her speaking about them. The one she uses is the one she prefers because she feels it is generally the better for most people. They seem to be working very well . We have small numbers to our classes, which means that if any dog has a problem with learning the way she currently teaches, she'd be able to change to suit. Sounds good. I haven't seen many of the smaller dogs handle channels as well as guides but what matter is what the handler will be happy to train at home.

Don't know that she's spent a great deal of time focusing on it other than to show and demonstrate it. But thanks - I'll have a chat with her. Problem with the blinds is that they come more naturally to handlers than fronts and once taught can be a very hard habit to break. I speak from personal experience.

I'd highly recommend you don't worry about teaching blind crosses. You wont' see any of the more progressive clubs teaching or recommending them. If you have time to blind cross, you have time to front cross and you don't turn away from the dog. There is no formal level of obedience required for entry into agility at our club. What is required is control under distraction using any method the handler cares to employ to motivate the dog. In a class environment where toys and food are used by handlers, that's essential if more than one dog is to be offlead. Our club uses about 4 methods of weaver training, dependent on handler and dog. Channels and guides are the two most popular ones. I favour guides because you can encourage the desired behaviour and remove the handler from the equation very quickly. The challenge is getting the guides off fast enough.