Zug Zug

Yes I can. I train at 2 different clubs so twice a week I can (usually) join in with a group stay. In between I'll just do what I can

Fair enough - sounds fairly straightforward.

The main thing for me is keep it simple. I don't mind if it's pizza or something else (Subway or whatever). I just want to come along and pay my $5-10 or whatever and not have too much to think about. Pizza just sounded easy to me - it's cheap and just a phone call on the day and they deliver it. I don't eat pizza very often but for an event like this I think it takes the pressure off people to prepare food for everyone etc. If someone is really keen to do food preparation (I'm not) then that's fine I'll chip in my money on the day no probs. Don't fancy the logistics of trying to collect money before the day, though. That sounds like it could be a bit of a headache. If that was required then perhaps it should have been incorporated into the ticket price.

I know Rubystar I think that's a really important point and I think it is nervousness about that issue that's prevented me doing it until now. What if something happens and I don't see it? At the moment I put her in a stay and I duck behind a tree or behind the corner of a toilet cubicle but keep peeking - and I can see the rest of the park from there so would know if another dog was in the vicinity. I guess I thought from Sunday's experience that I would need to train with longer distances. The backyard stuff is perfectly safe, and I can easily extend time and distance at home by going inside etc. But don't we need to practice longer distance stays in other places? If not, then that's great. I guess I just thought maybe that was where we were going wrong?

Did stays twice today - at lunch time and after work - perfect no problems. There is a very big difference between 'stay at home or in the park with no other dogs around' and 'stay with lots of strange dogs around' isn't there? Harder to practice the latter version. I have also noticed that when I practice the stays I don't walk as far away - I tend to go to the nearest place out of sight. At the trial we had to go for MILES! So I need to build up the distance as well. So from now on we're practising 'stay at this side of the park while I walk ALL the way over to the other side and find a spot out of sight'. Other dogs as and when we can. And 'stay at the farthest corner of the garden while I leave you and go inside and a long way away, and come back with the world's most awesome treat when you're good!

I vote pizza - just keep it simple. I just want to show up and learn and eat. I won't drink soft drink but cup of tea is very good - especially if it's a cold day

Good to hear the OP has resisted temptation. The pup you actually get (from a breeder) will be just as beautiful and you can be happy about where it came from. It's worth the wait. I'm another one who bought a dog from a pet shop 12 years ago, only to discover he had some very serious health issues (corona virus). He was near death within 24 hours and stayed very close to death for almost 2 weeks. The pet shop refused to help pay any of his vet bills. They did say I could return him for my money back though - as if he was a broken toaster! I was just completely disgusted. Even my vet wrote them a letter. He did survive in the end though - we were lucky. But pet shops that sell pups are horrible. Never again.

Sleeping in no excuse. We didn't get there until 11:45 - just in time to have a run through the ring. Was perfect timing. Arrived just as the last dog was finishing, paid our money, went straight into the ring and then straight on to the stays. 20 mins later all done and ready to go home!

OK, the mock trial was today. Not bad overall, a few things to work on, as follows: Heel Free - pretty good, she was a bit wide but very quick and happy. I led her out too wide on the figure 8 and the judge suggested I work more closely to the 'posts' next time. SFE - perfect Drop on Recall - not bad. She took a few paces to drop though. It was the longest distance we've ever attempted so I was content but will keep working on smart, punchy drops. Dumbbell on Flat - perfect, except she bounced up onto her haunches into a bit of a beg when I removed the dumbbell, but no big deal Dumbbell over Jump - perfect and with gusto! Distance Control - perfect at quite a long distance So the judge gave me a few comments, said she was a great dog, and I should enter her in the next Open trial. I thought 'but you haven't seen the stays yet'... Sit stay - she didn't. She kept dropping. The judge corrected her twice by putting her (and a few other dogs) back into a sit position. She then got very anxious and by the time I was returning she just ran over to meet me in a bit of a panic. Oh dear. ;) Drop stay - Given her reaction in the sit stay I didn't fully attempt this one but walked off and kept popping into and out of sight for the 5 mins (which is what I should have done in the sits - oh well). I never saw her get up but the judge said she hopped up and back down at some point. So she failed that one too. I have some work to do on the stays. I knew they weren't ready so no big surprises. Not sure how long it will take her, but she was definitely not ready for that bit yet! Still thinking about some trials in 6 weeks though. Will keep training, enter her, and pull her out if I don't think she's ready.

Some of the discussion above seems to focus on 2 different ways of understanding dominance. One being 'dominance is a relationship between individuals' - i.e. dominance/submissiveness exist on a spectrum and are therefore exhibited to various degrees by all dogs. The other being 'a dog is either truly dominant or it's not' - i.e. you're not really dominant unless you exist right at the edge of that spectrum. I would have thought the first approach was more correct, and better describes why some dogs exhibit dominance in some situations (and social groups) but not in others (where there may be another more dominant individual at play). One of the points of debate is to what extent dogs consider humans to be part of their dominance relationships, and to what extent we are external to their hierarchy of relationships. For my part, I think if we share a home we share a hierarchy - but I think Patricia McConnell would challenge that view. My interpretation of Patricia McConnell's writing is that she actually wants to bring the word 'dominant' back into the language we use. In her book she complains that it's essentially become a dirty word, mainly due to misuse and resulting mistreatment of dogs (example: alpha rolling dogs), and that we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater by dropping the word (and therefore the concept) from our discussions about dogs. The way I read her writing, she thinks we do need to understand dominance to really understand dog behaviour.

Personally I would put more weight on genetic factors in determining levels of dominance. I think education/training can influence how that dominance is expressed and how much inhibition the dog exercises in day to day life, but I think we over-rate the importance of education in determining base temperament. As a mother of fraternal twins who were in my womb at exactly the same time and were raised by the same people in the same circumstances, yet have very very different temperaments, it has always seemed to me that the 'nature' side of the 'nature/nurture' debate has been under-valued by many people. It is also evident when you look at litters of pups with very different temperaments. I think we tend to do this because we want to think we have more control over things than we really do. Other things can influence a dog's behaviour, but I do think that the base temperament and level of dominance is something a dog is born with.

First cut. They probably thought it was best to get out of the way and let the 'professionals' develop a relationship with the dog. But sounds like they were exceptionally unprofessional. That is disgustingly rough treatment, and it was only a pup. They got off very lightly.

On reflection I think you are right about the food guarding. I have a very submissive dog who guards his food treasures in the hope that my other (more dominant) dog will let him keep them. Sometimes she does. When she really wants it she just bowls straight into and over him and he has to give over. They both know who's boss. I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I would say that a dog who 'will go for a person' is a problem. I'm not saying they are sick dogs or anything like that, and from the dog's perspective that may be a sensible response. But it is dangerous behaviour so I don't know if I agree that it is not out of place. As you say, a dog like that needs to be very carefully managed and if it is not managed very well from very early on then I think that has the potential to turn into a dog that has 'gone wrong'. Yes truly dominant dogs are rare creatures. I was attacked by a truly dominant male boxer about 15 years ago. No warning bark, no hesitation, he just launched straight at my throat and didn't stop. While I have a relatively dominant poodle bitch at home she is only dominant in relation to our other very submissive dog (and she tries to assert herself over us with very limited success). But when compared with this other dog her 'dominance' is actually very mild. It's all relative.

Hmm good question. I guess I was thinking largely about humans trying to exert dominance over their dogs. But in my mind I would think a dominant dog that is well-balanced is a dog that is calling the shots. Gets the bone, greets other dogs with a high posture and a high level of confidence. Is very happy to alert owners to wanting to go out to the loo (i.e. not shy about heading to the door and barking to be let out). Might even hump the other dogs. That kind of thing. Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression. How would you describe a dominant dog?

I have always had collars on my dogs. I've never had a choking issue or anything like that. Also the Council requires that the dogs have their rego tags on. On the rare times when they have escaped our yard (hopefully never again but it could happen), it has meant they have been able to be returned straight back home without a need to detour via the Council, because we also have an engraved tag with our phone number and address on it, and our vet's details. I don't think most neighbours would really know where each dog lives, except your next door neighbours and maybe one or two others. As soon as you're a block from home the dog could come from anywhere.

I have a teenage daughter like that! She was the same even as a young girl. It's just that some people (and some dogs) are more self-contained. Advantages of having a self-contained dog (or daughter): 1. they have an 'off-switch' and are relatively quiet 2. they don't mind when you go out 3. they don't crowd you when it's hot 4. they let you read a book or watch TV in peace I used to feel rejected when my daughter stopped wanting cuddles too. But she's in her zone and she's happy. Like you say, sometimes it's us that just need to adjust our thinking and go with it. She sounds like a lovely puppy.

Here is the way my brain reacts to the 2 words 'dominance' and 'leadership': Dominance - power over something/someone else Leadership - showing someone the way / leading someone somewhere To me they are very different things. And yes, these are absolutely subjective statements, and yes they are value-laden. But I think these are common interpretations of these words in the wider community. There is no reason that 'dominance' needs to imply the use of force and harsh corrections. But the practical application of 'being dominant' and 'being the alpha' by so many dog owners does in fact lead so many of them to do that kind of thing. I've seen people give some awful, sneak-attack corrections to their dogs while growling at them 'I'm the boss!'. In years gone by I had instructors encouraging me to behave in the same way. It comes from a twisted concept of what leadership is about between a dog and its human, I think. And it brings out the ugly side of some handlers, at their dogs' expense. That may not be what 'dominance' is really all about, but it is what it is translated as by a lot of handlers.

I think that a better understanding of dog motivations and behaviours is very important. I have seen people deal out VERY harsh corrections to their dogs, because the dog wasn't listening (or whatever) and the owner/handler was trying to re-establish dominance. There have been days when my jaw has just dropped - one in particular that I will never forget. I've also seen some very ill-informed owners proudly encouraging 'alpha' behaviour in their animals - which was really encouraging aggression. They think they're creating a tough dog - but it's actually dangerous. I do think status is important to dogs. I also think it is extremely important to some people. I think you've hit the nail on the head by defining the difference between 'dominance' and 'leadership'. A better understanding of this stuff by dog owners can only be a good thing.

LotGhans you (and your dogs) look beautiful and what a fantastic dress! I'm going to show that photo to my daughter - she is into clothing design and she will absolutely love that! What are the cobwebs made from?

I have K9 pro's grippy line also and it's a fantastic quality line that would be very hard to break. Given you have larger dogs, I would highly recommend it.

A number of great Paps competing in SA. So funny watching them. Hard to look serious with such big ears

All I can say is this - I tried working with purely no-food training with my first dog with limited (almost no) success, then changed to food rewards (after reading the Kintala Club book 20 years ago) and voila she improved dramatically almost overnight. Unfortunately that dog died young, then 15 years later I found myself doing formal training again with another dog (after having kids in the interim). I used food rewards but had trouble, as you say, being precise and making the transition to the ring. I was introduced to clicker training and voila - we improved dramatically almost overnight. I had been told by many people that our issues were because I used food. But that wasn't correct. It was because I was using the food incorrectly. Moving to the use of the clicker has made our communication very precise. Her motivation to work is now very high and more than enough to get through a ring pattern. Do I always have food on me? No. But with such a long and strong history of reinforcement, she will work for me anyway these days. Dogs working only for the food is a stage you go through while they're learning, but they generalise their behaviour over time and you end up with a dog that loves to work for you.

Saying 'no' and knee in the ribs did not work for my dog when she was younger and a jumping fanatic. She thought the knee was fun. To make it un-fun I would have had to hurt her. Not cool What did work was withdrawing my attention (turning my back, leaving the room, walking back inside). It was attention she was after, and that really hit the nail on the head. Also, teaching her other ways to get attention (she trials in obedience now and loves it). Mind you, she really just swapped jumping on us for jumping up and down in front of us. She is very exuberant. She will always be a 'jump for joy' dog. We don't mind that - in fact we've all come to really love it.

So sorry Pepi - it must be so hard for you today. While a part of you knew this could be coming, we are never really prepared when it does. And no matter how much we've done for them, there is always a little part of us that tortures us with thoughts of 'what if...' Look after youself and remember that you gave him a long and happy life. His time had come, and now he can rest.

I use my own hairdryer - do it outside on the bench under our pergola. My neighbours think it's hilarious.