corvus

You know what, this is one of those things that is quickly reaching "it is known" status. I have tried to track down the data that apparently show this and have been unsuccessful. The best I have got is something like Turid Rugaas has some data that shows this, but if she does, it is not peer reviewed or published, so... There are plenty of studies on cortisol recovery after stressful events, and typically the return to baseline is around 30 minutes AFAIK. Maybe if the dog is chronically stressed it takes 72 hours, but not for typical, healthy animals. I run reactive dog classes and if we have a misstep and resultant overt reaction, that is not the end of the class for that dog. We give them a minute to recover, work them again very briefly to reinstate another positive/neutral experience, then give them a break for about 10 minutes and they are generally not more likely to react again after that second rest. For a while I was tracking this in my own reactive dog, who has problems with arousal regulation. He goes up real easy and comes down with difficulty. Even he, though, will recover to typical levels of reactivity after about 10 minutes. My more laid back dog can go from almost hysterical to seems like nothing happened in a matter of about a minute. Now, if he had 3 or 4 episodes like that in an hour, though, that would be different. But, then we're getting a learning effect as well as an arousal effect. Last week on a walk he had unusually close and sudden encounters with 2 cats in the space of about 15 minutes. That is enough to make him a bit toey for the next half hour, but in a very specific way. He's looking for things that run. The other two dogs had no such reaction and they were there for all that cat-related excitement as well. I advise clients with reactive dogs that one big reaction is okay. Take a couple of minutes to recover, make sure the dog has calmed down, look for signs that confirm this like a shake-off, sniffing, rolling, looking for engagement with the owner, then move on. If it happens again, repeat, but call it a day and head home. It's a very loose rule, though.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope. Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up. "Animal Rights activists said so" is not a valid inductive argument.

I said the same thing. Really.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

I think how much time you have is a big factor. I don't know where people find the time to do more than a couple of hours of stuff with their dog every day. When Kestrel first arrived, I was taking her out separately from the other two in the afternoon because Erik wasn't ready to share his outings with her and with just one of me, I couldn't take her and keep her out of his way as well. I was so relieved when a few weeks later they were getting along well enough for me to start taking all of them. Taking the hunds out and then the pup in the afternoon took a minimum of 2 hours no matter how I did it. Other things were suffering, like my own exercise activities. I'm not sure a dog can technically be over-exercised. Humans can injure themselves if they over train, so I guess same for dogs. My hunds get tired at the end of a long walk and start to slow down and drift. I know when my dogs need more exercise, though. They are restless at home, Erik barks and pokes. They get into things and tear or chew things up. The new pup has a fine off switch and can sleep and sleep if we're not doing anything, but I can tell if she's not getting enough exercise because she's a maniac when she gets off leash time. She barks and runs and that's about it until she gets it out of her system. If she's been getting enough, though, she runs less and is more even-keeled. When it's hot, we just go straight to the river to cool off rather than walking around much. You would not catch me out walking in the middle of the day, with or without dogs.

Are you sure about that? That is not just natural behaviour, it's natural behaviour with a super important function (who is in my neighbourhood, what sex, what's their reproductive status, how long ago were they here, etc.). They might not technically need to know these things when living in our world, but try to convince them that. And when they are walking with me, it's their walk, too. If I want to stop and look at a bird, they have to put up with that, so I put up with it when they want to stop and sniff. My dogs get 1 or 2 outings a day amounting to 60-90 minutes of exercise or so, usually. Keeping close is a sort of mental stimulation. If I walk them on leash for an hour, they all start losing their focus towards the end and forget to pay attention to where we're going. I give them long leashes and let them sniff, though. Like I said, it's their walk, too.

Or she could just get a Swedish vallhund.

Well... I would say they believe those who say things that confirm their already held beliefs. ;) Inconsistencies don't seem to bother the majority of people IME. I don't think they even notice seeing as they are quite focused on confirmation. Those that are very opposed use them to their advantage, but often make the same kind of mistakes anyway. I doubt there were many on the fence after the live baiting scandal. Those that were never involved much suddenly had a good reason to care. It is difficult not to be moved by that footage. I still cringe and look away. Personally, I tend to dismiss sources of information of questionable accuracy. It doesn't make me think better or worse of either side of an argument. I just need better information. But, you know, that's what I've been trained to do. :) I agree that a single, reasoned voice for the industry would help, and these are times when strong leadership is critical, but it's not going to happen. People still need to express themselves. We have had these discussions in the training world, and I have argued time and time again that emotive arguments and selective reporting loses the very people that are most persuadable. No one ever listens to me, though. They are very frightened that any shift from the party line might mean they are condoning things they vehemently oppose. I've had people come to me for information precisely because they have seen me present both sides of an argument without much emotion. So, I still believe it wins people over. But, people hate to be told to be quiet when they have a lot to say. They of course believe they are helping by saying it. Suggesting maybe they are not tends to result in a great deal of hostility!

I am a behaviourist, and I agree. If things are not improving, then chances are you are in some way maintaining or even contributing to her problematic behaviour. The first step in just about any behaviour modification program is to take steps to prevent the behaviour in the first place if possible. If it is emotionally driven and you can't do that, the dog is just learning that this is how walks go. Even if her emotional response to her triggers change, she is likely to continue the problematic behaviour just through sheer classical conditioning. If that happens, things get quite difficult because you have to change the picture. If she continues to be triggered emotionally, then she is likely to become sensitised and the behaviour will probably spread to more contexts rather than contract to less. She needs a VB. Getting a lot of exercise doesn't require that she enjoy it.

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority.

The greyhounds know they are chasing a lure and not a live animal as well. They are highly conditioned, though. If they have learnt to bite the lure for good times after a run, that's what they try to do, even when they can't, and regardless of what the lure consists of. You can even tell where they usually get access to the lure, which seems to matter more than where the lure actually is. There are videos online of dogs racing without a lure. They run for about as long as they reckon they should, then start looking for the lure to make contact with. If people believe that associating the lure with an animal will make the lure more motivating (and clearly some did join those dots), then there's no reason why it could not work for lure coursing, or why no one would ever make that connection again. And that association does not have to be tight. We have seen that with the greyhounds. They are not chasing lures with squealing piglets attached to them only. The training only loosely resembles a race. However, it is completely a separate issue to whether they would actually do it in a million years. There is no strong enough incentive for it and the culture is undoubtedly very different. Those things matter. So, it seems beside the point to me whether the dogs know what they are chasing or how interested in live animals they are, or whether they are safe with them, or whatever other issues people keep bringing up. The issue is much simpler. It's not about dogs at all. It's about people. Could someone involved in lure coursing feel that live baiting would give them a competitive edge and go ahead and give it a try? Yes. In a bizarre parallel universe where lure coursing people think in those terms and have those priorities. The reasoning is therefore flawed, because it assumes that "possible"="might happen". Lots of horrific things are possible that very rarely if ever happen.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't. Ah, of course. I am the one that is ignorant about what my job is and why I am doing it. Silly me. It couldn't be you, who hasn't the faintest idea what my job actually is until I hinted at it just last night. It's not the industry I have faith in, for the record. It's the people that are currently leading GRNSW. I know it is difficult for you, but consider just for a moment that I might be a rational, thinking being with a mountain of cynicism and I actually need evidence before I believe something. Your evidence seems to consist of a leaked e-mail from someone that no longer works at GRNSW. Could my information be more current? Surely not.

You know, I got Kestrel because I was after a small dog that could run long distances but wasn't a terrier. I was a bit scared by the thought of a terrier trail running with me and whether I'd ever see it again if I let it off leash. Or if it would instantly try to kill a snake or something. Also not really into lap dogs. Kestrel is kind of in between all those things. She is terrier-esque in that she LOVES to explore and can be kind of reactive and notices everything going on around her. She fires up pretty easily. However, she is probably more sociable than the average terrier. I really wanted something with reasonable conflict resolution skills, and she is pretty good there. She is generally friendly, and probably more cautious than the stereotypical terrier. She is game, but she'll check before she commits to something. Currently she is good off leash in the bush and on the dog beach. She runs a lot, and is very adventurous in where she will go to explore, but stays in sight and usually comes when called. She does spend a lot of time on my lap, but she is not as intrusive as many toy breeds. She will back off until I'm ready for her and wait for an invitation. Mostly I just didn't want a self-important scrappy and socially intolerant dog, and I really didn't want it racing off to hunt all the time. So, that seems to be going all right. So far. :) She is very smart. That's fun. But very different to train.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip* It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way. You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now. That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes. There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light. Why not? They had lost public trust and were facing intervention from the government. When you consider what the government's decision actually was, GRNSW didn't spend anywhere near what they should have and now, they stand to lose everything. Okay, because that was obviously my strongest argument. And you know, why would I understand the motivation behind my funding. The question in the research community when the tenders were released was "Why are they funding post-docs and not PhDs?" Generally, industry funds post-docs when they want results. They cost a whole lot more, but there's less risk, and the quality of the research is more reliable. And, funnily enough, that's just about exactly what I was told when I was discussing with GRNSW the possibility of students. That is not common knowledge, really. The public wouldn't know the difference. *shrug* It all checks out to me. If the public doesn't know the difference, there is no point allocating funds to support fewer projects, or investing more than an independent body (WDA) has recommended. You wouldn't waste money if you thought you would survive the near future, and I do think they believed they would survive. The funding pool wasn't lucrative by any means. It was very challenging to stretch the budget to cover the costs of the research. They have thrown money at a problem, but not blindly or recklessly IMO. I doubt throwing more money at it would have changed anything unless they had done it a fair bit sooner. At the end of the day, I do not feel I have been negotiating over something that doesn't matter to the industry that is funding it. It is pretty obvious when this is occurring. I used to be an environmental consultant. I know ticking irritating and expensive boxes when I see it. GRNSW have been surprisingly honest with me, so either they are expert liars in person and their cunning plan to trick the scientist (why, I cannot fathom - I don't have the luxury to let my sensibilities dictate the work I take) is to feed them enough unsavoury truths to gain their trust, or I perhaps know what the goal of my funding is.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip* It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way. You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now. That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes. There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. The folks at GRNSW that I have been liaising with are serious about change. I am disappointed that I won't get the chance to help them and see it through. The wastage issue is not going to go away, though. The same problem exists in the horse racing industry, and in stock dogs as well. Anywhere the payoff to breed a lot of animals to get a few good ones is higher than it is to figure out how to breed good ones is going to have this problem to varying degrees. They might have reduced it to something more bearable, but likely it would have had a significant impact on the industry's financial viability. I still don't believe this is an animal welfare decision, though. Those really do not get money thrown at them as a rule, or risk upsetting a lot of voters. Be that as it may, it can be passed off as an animal welfare decision, and that seems to be how Baird wants to play it. Other industries facing similar controversy should be worried IMO.

It was a repeat mating, so full sister, but different litter. :) I'm pretty smitten with her. She is not particularly obsessive about anything, but is up for whatever I can dream up, so she is easy and fun to live with. Very smart, speedy, agile, and hopefully she will one day be running 10+km runs with me. She is also super cute and full of games and mischief and cuddles.

Sometimes it's hard to believe she's less than 5.5kg. :laugh: I guess the bounding up and down sand dunes and all the rock hopping and chasing swallows she does pays off.

Kestrel is in fact Ping's younger sister. She has her dad's colouring and is closer to his size. Her ears are a bit big and heavy and don't look like they are going to make it upright, but she's only here to run, so doesn't matter. :) She is 10 months old and a pile of hard muscle. The ears pop up sometimes, though. She is a fun little office buddy.

I think maybe my company is the most eclectic. The hund bros, Erik the Tall and Kivi Tarro. Kestrel, the new one.

Bondi Behaviourist is top notch. I would refer to him without hesitation. Also Jo Righetti from Pet Problems Solved on the North Shore.

That's the method I've been using on Kestrel's nails. They are white, so very easy to practice on before I tackle the boys' black nails. I like the alternative cut. The vet is right - the quick recedes in a few days. I haven't quicked Kestrel yet, but a couple of times she's flinched and I know I went a wee bit too close. Much peanut butter buys forgiveness.

I have two dogs that prefer clippers over a rotary tool. It is too noisy and the vibration when it touches their nails worries them. My new pup had a major aversion to nail clippers when I got her and I thought the rotary tool might help seeing as it was different. Yeah, fat chance she is going anywhere near that thing, even after watching the other two dogs getting lots of treats around it. I tried going very slow and shaping her to put a paw in my hand and hold still while I trimmed, but the conflict of the food present and her anticipation that any moment I was going to hurt her made it so slow as to be impractical, really. I fiddled around with a few options and in the end got the best results from just clipping the tip of one nail and then giving her the entire peanut butter jar to lick for 10 seconds. She now lets me set her on her back in my lap and holds still while I clip several nails. If that hadn't worked, I think the bucket game would have been the most effective second choice.

No, they didn't exactly. They suggested it apply to "coursing dogs". The exact wording is: "(1) A person who: … (e) keeps or is in charge of any animal of a prescribed species at any place used for the housing or kennelling, training, trialing, training or racing of coursing dogs, is guilty of an offence." They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", which is problematic, as the Commission report flagged. My guess would be they didn't define a breed because they didn't want to leave an exploitable loophole whereby dubious racing activities could shift to another breed (e.g. whippets are bred for racing in other countries). Without an alternative definition, coursing dogs are sighthounds and the relevant crosses (long dogs and lurchers). There isn't any other way to slice it, especially given the historical context the report uses. If you don't have a sighthound it's easy to be relaxed about definitions, of course. Edited to add - one of the reasons for getting on the front foot with this is precisely because murkiness about definitions could end up being legislated. Then we're all in a mess. Well, without a clear definition of any kind, it's open to interpretation. That was my point. I could argue my podengo is a coursing dog (she seems to think she is), and I could argue that she is not. I could argue a whippet mix is a coursing dog, and I could argue it's not if it has never coursed a thing in its life. If I did lure coursing with my lapphund, I could argue he is a coursing dog or that he's not, and obviously he is not a sighthound. There is no distinction between dogs that do actually for real course on a regular basis (for competition?) and dogs that were bred once upon a time long ago for coursing-like activities, which is exactly what the report flags as problematic. It offers a solution that penalises people involved in lure coursing unfairly. I am not suggesting everyone relax because the definition the RSPCA suggested is ambiguous. I am suggesting the evidence is lacking to assert RSPCA Australia is targeting sighthounds precisely because they did not define what they meant by a coursing dog. The report does define it, though, so if you're going to assert someone is after sighthounds, that assertion should be directed at McHugh. But that doesn't bear up to scrutiny, either, because he's the one that pointed out the RSPCA's submission would penalise dogs and owners that had never had anything to do with coursing of any kind, and that some dogs of breeds that are not traditionally coursing breeds also engage in lure coursing.