Joel

thanks jigsaw

Thanks for the recommendations on books. Ill look in to it I think its a bit harsh to single me out as one who is 'stating things on here as if they are fact' when this forum (this thread inclusive) is full of people doing the same thing and you do not direct your comment at them too - especially considering I have repeatedly said that what I have said is just that - my opinion, whereas others havent (although, this is a public forum, and unless anything is referenced, its all just opinions, but at least I went to the trouble of specifying it). EDITED TO ADD: Aidan, damn... you are my hero, lol. I wish every post had that amount of researched information in it. Sounds to me like you definately know your stuff. I have to admit, I had a lol moment when I read about how your golden would be able to eat just corn for a month and end up with just a bit of dandruff and perhaps an ear infection. for some reason i pictured it as a cartoon and it made it quite amusing Ill search the Diathesis stress model too - sounds quite interesting!

+1 Thanks Aidan, thats the kinda advice I want! Until now I had never even heard of Google Scholar or Google Books, so it goes to show what I might have missed out on! In regards to the alchoholism topic (very OT I know), I was under the impression that recent studies have suggested that it is linked to a gene influencing the likelihood of addiction? Either way, I'll definitely take your suggestions and research it all! Thanks! :D

That is a HUGE assumption. We're not talking about normal pet buyers. We're talking about experienced professionals in the canine field. I'm pretty sure they are aware of the dangers. My point exactly. Contradictory. Your opinions may very well be backed up by many, but that doesnt change the fact. People have opinions on everything under the sun, with many people having the same opinions, but fact is not a majority vote. I am fully prepared to do the research myself. Stop being so quick to jump down my throat. What I was saying was that these remain opinions, and until such time as fact is put forward, then it will be seen as the exactly that - opinion. I had previously asked that if sas had any links/references to studies then it would be greatly appreciated. If she chooses not to, then thats fine too - I can find it myself. You're right, this is a community forum and I thought the whole idea of community was to help eachother? Whether that be teaching or helping someone into a situation where they can teach themselves. Meh. EDITED TO ADD: Couldn't have hit the nail more on the head. What everyone seems to be missing here is that it is the owners responsibility to make sure that the dog knows that its place on the pack heirachy is at the bottom. The dog should not be expected to just assume that position on its own without any direction.

I realize that I am getting advice from experienced people, and I know both of their reputations as such, but it is their opinion none the less. Yes, I take their experience and reputation into account, but that doesn't create a fact. I want some studies, recorded observations etc so I can either have it PROVED to me or make a decision for myself. I'm not pretending to know it all, because I dont (and in fact in this subject I am probably quite ignorant and am just going by past experience and observations of my own (however limited they are)), but I do not follow advice as fact. Wanted to touch on this too.... This statement is contradictory (in my mind anyhow). You are saying that they dont need to be PTS and that its not the dogs fault, but that it cant exist in our society. Where does it exist then? Greytmate, I don't think its unethical to offer a HA dog to an informed adopter. Hypothetically, lets say that a behaviorist and trainer wanted to adopt a dog that had bitten someone to rehabilitate it... is that unethical to allow them to do so? They are completely aware of the dangers and risks involved and have an understanding of not only what they are getting in to, but what needs to be done to solve a problem (if there is a solution). I, personally, don't think so. The question may become "At which point does it become unethical to adopt out a HA dog", and/or "What constitutes a dog being HA to the point of being unadoptable" but thats a whole other can of beans.

Ease up tiger. My point was that just because you find out that your dog is not suitable to be around kids (this is obviously assuming that it is not in a household with kids in which case it can be rehomed to people without kids and that are aware of the issue) does not mean they need to be destroyed. People find out their dogs cant be around other dogs, and yet are perfectly content with it. EDITED TO ADD: Sas, I probably should have worded it better, but I still believe that a dogs behavior is MOSTLY determined by its environment. Sure, breeding etc comes in to it, but there are plenty of examples of 'poorly bred' dogs that have even had poor environments that get rehomed into great environments and end up fantastic. With that said, there are also plenty of examples of excellently bred dogs that end up in a poor environment that end up being a nightmare. Anyway, I would like to read up more about how genetics effects temperaments, so if you have any good links, post them

I wouldn't want to be matched up by the breader - I would want to do it myself after seeing the puppies. The breeder may give recommendations and explain what they have seen over the past 8/10 weeks, but I want to be the one that chooses the dog for me, and I think thats the way it should be. Then I am responsible from then on out. Why can you not have a dog that cant be around kids? People own dogs that aren't able to be around other dogs without issue...? EDIT: Obviously its not desirable by any means, but if those are the cards you're dealt, then you need to use them. As for the poking and proding.. it was an example of my trust in my dog. I don't encourage this in any way, but at the end of the day, kids are kids. You have to expect them to do things like that. Im not talking about toddlers - they should have a adult sitting right with them, probably holding their hand as they pat a dog, but about older kids - 3-10 say. Kids can be sneaky and can do something that you dont like before you have a chance to stop it (eg, pulling a tail). I'm not talking about your own kids, because you have the chance to teach them the proper way to behave around a dog, but you dont have that chance with other peoples kids (you can give them a quick talk about what they can and cant do, but at the end of it, they're still kids (and from my experience, like to test things out for themselves ). With that said, you could always just let them pat for a little bit, then remove the dog, but I think that kids should be around animals as much as possible.

When we talk about 'weak nerved' here, we are always talking about a genetic tendency. Good breeders will try to cull weak-nerved dogs from breeding programs, and there is less risk for puppy buyers buying from these breeders. However there are a large number of bad breeders, breeding from weak-nerved dogs, and producing more of them. Buyer Beware! (or come here for advice). Which breeds have a tendency to be 'weak nerved'? I assumed that 'weak nerved' was the result of poor treatment in most cases (ie. an adopted 'weak nerved' dog probably got that way from being mistreated by its former owner or being sheltered in poor conditions)...? I know that there are a bunch of bad breeders that will breed from any dog, weak nerved, aggressive, whatever, but at the end of the day, is it STILL not the owners responsibility? They have a choice of who to buy from. They have a choice of which puppy to take in most cases. There are multiple opportunities to make sure that you buy the best you can, and if you dont, then I think that it is your own doing if there are problems down the track. Obviously, there is always variance between dogs and who knows, one just might be crazy (after all, there are crazy people too), but I think that is an exception to the rule. Generally speaking, people have the chance to pick the best dog possible (or at least from a group of the best possible), and then bring them up in such a way as to make their dogs temperaments reliable (or, i liked the term "bombproof").

Yes megan I agree that a dog that attacks when not provoked is a danger to the community, but how has it gotten to the stage where it would do that? I'm not suggesting that most people here dont see their dogs as part of their family, but I dont think some do. They say that their dog is part of the family... until something happens. That is not truly being part of the family. Thats like saying to your son "You're my son, but if you do something wrong, we're going to kill you". If being in a family means that, I would have been dead long ago. If a dog is "weak nerved" then I dont think it is born this way. If it IS, then why was it picked as a family pet? Either way, it is the owners responsibility. If you take on a dog with 'weak nerves' then you have to take the proper precautions. If that means never letting it be around kids, then so be it.

A dog chasing down and child and killing it is different than a dog snapping because a child has come too close. Another question that pops into my mind is... why are parents so easy going with their children around dogs? I was taught from a VERY young age that I was to ask permission to go near a dog and to never just run up and pat them or anything. I have NEVER not had a dog in the house (well, tell a lie, there was a month or so when we didn't have a dog) and was always aware of a dogs need for space and the correct way to behave whilst playing/showing affection. A dog does not generally seek out another animal that has come too close to prove its point. It will warn first - growl, snap etc. If children are not taught to recognize this, then the parents have a serious problem. And if they are too young to understand this, then they are too young to be unsupervised around animals. I am so confident in my dog not attacking people that I am happy to let kids near her (with my supervision of course (not because I think anything will happen, but I think its the responsible thing to do)). People could pull at her face, pull her tail or try and ride her and she wouldnt bite. She wouldnt be happy, but she wouldnt bite. She'd probably just run away if she'd had. Kids could come up to her while she was on her bed, eating her food, anything, and there wouldn't be a problem. If she had nowhere to escape to, then there might be, but again, that is MY responsibility as a dog owner to know this and make sure that she is not put in this type of situation. And if she WAS put in that situation and I did not prevent it, then that it MY fault.

True - I stand corrected. With that said, I think with proper training and management any breed can be put into a situation where its genetic instincts are put under pressure but a reliable outcome can be achieved because an environment that doesn't support those instincts. Although I dont think a mastiff was the best choice of breed for their situation, it SHOULD be workable. And no matter the breed, it shouldn't be aggressive towards people. THAT, I think, is behavior that has not been made completely unacceptable on the owners part (whether it stems from allowing the dog to be possessive or something is for a behaviorist to determine). I am not a behaviorist, and these are just my opinions. If I stand to be corrected, then so be it

(we were both rude to eachother - i can take it, jaxx couldn't (which is fine - totally up to him/her on what their limit is for what they will take)). anyway, dogluva, my point is that this type of behavior (if the dog has been owned since it was a pup) has been allowed to accumulate by the OWNER over time. I dont see why its the dogs fault for the owner neglecting to properly control it. The same goes for people who have cats and greyhounds (or similar prey-driven breeds). If their dog chases and catches their cat, then its the owners fault, not the dogs. I just dont see why a dog should have to surrender its life because of the inabilities of the owner to handle the characteristics of a certain breed. I just dont get it. It seems like I'm the only one that sees my dog as PART OF MY FAMILY. Would you kill one of your children for fighting with their sibling (after all, children are still capable of killing each other). Of course not. You would try and resolve the problem. You would do EVERYTHING in your power to make sure that everyone in the family lived happily and peacefully with each other. You wouldn't just condemn one member because they screwed up once (especially considering what I have previously said about dogs being products of their environment, which therefore means that their problem = your problem).

Mastiffs are guarding breeds and it is normal for them to display guarding behaviour on maturity but it is up to the owners to control who and what needs to be guarded, and to be able to switch off the guarding. From what you have said above, it is possible this dog thinks that your husband is pack leader but that he (the dog) comes next in the pack, ahead of you and the children. This causes him to believe he needs to protect you from everyone outside the family. I have seen this happen with many dogs and it is easily fixed with a small breed but this is a very large breed with the potential to do a lot of damage if not handled correctly. I agree that you need the help of a good behaviouralist immediately to assess this dog and work out if a shift in family pack structure would correct the behaviour or not. +1 I can't believe the people saying that they would take their dog to the vet (I'm assuming to be destroyed) because of a behavioral issue like this. Sounds to me like this is a problem with the OWNER, not the dog (which I believe is the problem in most cases - especially when the dog has been in the care of the same owner since it was a puppy). A dogs behavior is determined by its environment, just like anybody elses. If you create an environment where your dog will be aggressive, then the problem is yours, not the dogs Anyway, sound advice IMO from dancinbcs. You've already made a couple of steps forward which is good to see (those being coming on here and seeking advice).

Hmm... thats interesting to hear about Guide Dogs Vic... I'd really like to know what system they use and its similarities to this program are - it would be quite interesting I think So, if anyone knows, post it here

Wow, it sounds like you do a lot with your pups - which is great I think that every dog has the same mental possibilities (generally speaking), but that perhaps this program kicks the brain in to thinking that perhaps it should use a little more of the potential that it has because (like pups that are born in the wild or on a farm or similar) it will be facing greater challenges in its life and without tapping further into its reserves it wont survive. Of course, this probably isn't the case (that they need it to help them survive), but surely doing exercises to prepare the brain (and the body) to be able to handle more cant be a bad thing?

Hmm... I wonder whether its just a case of people not knowing about it? o_O If thats the case, then perhaps theres a possibility that we could make it a little more common practice if theres breeders out there that are willing to do it and buyers who want it? I'd definitely love it if I found that a breeder that I was going to buy a pup from was doing this.

+1 I just dont think theres been much publicity (not the word I was looking for, but if i think of it later i'll edit ) about it here. I dont know whether there has or not in the breeder circles, but I'd only heard about it last week or so. I'd love to get a puppy which had gone through this program.

Just out of curiosity... is this puppy going to be for a present for somebody...?

I don't know about comparisons done between being born 'rough' or not (because you would have to compare different litters, which would make the pups used in comparison be less similar anyway), but there have definately been comparisons between pups being part of the Bio Sensor program and ones that haven't (from the same litter). The results were quite pronounced from my understanding. It was an interesting idea to me too, as I think that challenges help to build anything (pup, kitten, baby etc) into a stronger being through necessity. Some people may think its cruel to put something under stress deliberately (although, its only very mild), but I think its part of life and the sooner they are introduced to it, the better they are able to cope with it in the future.

GSPs are being shown on the 3rd I believe.

Ok, so I've been reading about the Bio Sensor program after stumbling onto a video about it on youtube and was wondering whether anybody here had employed it in their breeding program or heard of it being done here? For those who dont know what it is, heres a rundown: In the 70s, the U.S. Military developed a program called the Bio Sensor program to improve the performance of dogs used for military purposes. The basic premise of the program is that early neurological stimulation (from between the 3rd and 16th day of life) increased the dogs performance later in life through the stimulation and support of the rapid neurological growth and development in these early stages. The program consists of five exercises that are performed in this thirteen day period. They are as follows: Tactile stimulation (between the toes) - Holding the pup in one hand, the handler gently stimulates (tickles) the pup between the toes on any one foot using a Q-tip (3-5 secs) Head held erect - Using both hands, the pup is held perpendicular to the ground (straight up), so that its head is directly above its tail (3-5) secs Head pointed down - Holding the pup firmly with both hands the head is reversed and is pointed downward so that it is pointing towards the ground (3-5 secs) Supine position - The pup is held so that its back is resting in the palm of both hands with its muzzle facing the ceiling. The pup while on its back is allowed to sleep struggle (3-5 secs) Thermal stimulation - Using a damp cloth that has been cooled in a refrigerator for at least five minutes, the pup is places feet down on the towel. It is not restrained from moving (3-5 secs) These are not substitutions for routine handling, play socialization or bonding, but are used in conjunction. The exercises are designed to put the pups under small amounts of stress. This kicks in to action the neurological system before than would normally be expected. Beneficial effects of these exercises include: Improved cardiovascular performance (heart rate) Stronger heart beats Stronger adrenal glands Greater tolerance to stress Greater resistance to disease Faster mental maturity Greater problem solving abilities When a comparison was made between stimulated pups and non stimulated pups (from the same litter), it was observed that the stimulated pups were more adventurous, active, less disturbed by stressful conditions, calm and easier to train in later life. However, adverse effects were observed when pups were overstimulated - too much stress could retard development. After this stage comes two more - socialization (which happens between 4 and 16 weeks) and enrichment (which has no time limit and by comparison covers a very long peroid of time). I wont go in to detail about these stages, because I was mainly just interested in what happens on the breeder side of things (which, although socialization falls in that time frame, I think that most breeders socialize their pups as much as possible anyway, and either way, the owner still has the opportunity to do it themselves). If you'd like to find out more: Google - Early Neurological Stimulation "Developing High Achievers" - Paper written on the subject by Carmen L. Battaglia So... thoughts? EDITED TO ADD: Although I am interested in what breeders here do, I'd also like to know whether everyone else would approve (or disprove) of their breeder using this program?

Edited to take out what I originally posted as it doesnt fit in with what you're after. Those pics look really nice. Where are they taken?

Wow, people getting a purebred for $500?! And even more shockingly... $100?! (I'm not saying theres anything wrong with this necessarily, but its definitely not what I would call 'normal') My partner and I are looking into getting a new dog to be part of our family and are expecting to pay over $1000 without even blinking. My advice would be to save up some more and be prepared to pay more. You do get what you pay for. Some are lucky and get a really great dog for a low price, but I think you're taking a bigger risk at the lower end of the price scale. Theres a reason that some are expensive - because people will pay it - theres a demand. Why will they pay it? Reputation, consistency, support, piece of mind and sound breeding. Either way, good luck with it all and make sure you post some pictures when you do get him/her!! P.S. My family has owned dachshunds and they are great dogs. They really do have a great personality and I guarantee that you'll be able to get rid of your mop and vacuum, as they are like little four legged spill cleaners If it falls on the floor, its gone before you have a chance to pick it up (at least thats how its been with ours :rolleyes: )

I'm positive that I'm not on the side of the farmers. I'm not on the side of most farmers in general. With that said, the reason that I chose to debate the topic with you is that I think that if you consider what I'm telling you, it will give you a better angle of attack for dealing with council. By showing you every possible angle that they can throw at you (and prepare you for it (because you will have already debated it with me )) then you are better equipped to argue harder and more to the point. I don't think you're going to get far arguing about genetics. 'People' like cross breeds. A lot of people want the characteristics of more than one breed. You'll never get people just buying pure breeds. There will ALWAYS be a market for cross-bred dogs (and I think to an extent that there is a place for them. After all, if no dogs had ever been cross bred, most of the breeds that we see today wouldn't be in existence. By the way, when I said "you need them" i meant council support, not puppy farmers, lol. Poodlemum: My point is that this is not a valid argument in the eyes of both the council and the law (especially when the council already has its back up on the topic). Either its not right for all, or none. Puppy farmers will shout discrimination at the top of their lungs and will sue government for it.... and probably win.. because it would be (obviously this is just my opinion and I'm not a lawyer). dyzney: Although I don't necessarily believe that people should be critically judged for their opinions, I think that it is in our nature to do so and that it should almost be expected when conveying an opinion. It seems that you also fall into this catagory of people to judge even though you were the first to argue this point - You judge me (whether openly, subtly or politely) for my opinions of others Anyway, it seems like the point I was trying to put forward hasn't been taken in the way it was meant. I'm glad that everyone is so passionate, but obviously what I'm saying is just falling on (mostly) deaf ears. So, all I can do is say good luck and fight hard Keep us posted on how it all goes