Longcoat

What is wrong with sitting in the gutter of a cul-de-sac with some other children!! You are seriously not going to say this is wrong and the parents or kids are at fault for sitting in front of their house!!! Why cant a dog just be a 'bad' dog, why is there always an excuse? I dont believe in BSL, but I DO believe if a child is bitten by a dog then it should be PTS. ESPECIALLY in this case where it appears to have been unprovoked. OH ETA... in my 40+ years I HAVE seen dogs of all and any breed be aggressive.. I comes back to the individual dog. You cant claim that ALL huskies are not aggressive the same as you cant claim that ALL pitbulls are. You cant have it both ways. Dogs don't have to like kids, my dog hates them and the provocation is simply that the dog doesn't like kids which is enough to raise a dog's defense. I prefer a dog that consistantly dislikes kids because owning a dog like that, you handle the dog accordingly and NEVER allow the dog to come in contact with kids for any accidents to happen. Too often, people think their dog is ok with kids, don't supervise the situation properly and kids get bitten.

What's done is done, maybe they were looking for a win for all unpapered amstaffs or pitbulls, i don't think calling them stupid is going to change anything. What if the thought, hey he's an amstaff and he's 'got off' what about all the other dogs (pits), they're all the same so why not let us own them aswell.Personally i don't think the council would ever have lost, they wouldn't go back on what they thought was right, and would spend whatever it took to get their way. They're the real reason all amstaff owners now find themselves in. not Ms Chivers. All she has done is care about her dog and fought tooth and nail for him, sure i don't know why this evidence was produced, but it's done, and all papered amstaff owners may look at the back yard pitbull owner in a different light, for now they will be classed as the same. That's not uncommon with the anti-BSLer's putting the spotlight on other breeds to try and get their's off the hook It's a wonder the bite stats didn't come out to put some heat on GSD's, Rotties, Dobes etc as they usually do. Not that I support BSL in any way...........but if the anti-BSL crowd don't be careful what they are doing like in this case, they can be a dangerous lot. It is Ms Chivers fault totally from the beginning buying an unpapered dog. Dedicated dog people have been campaigning for years for people to buy pedigree papered dogs from registered breeders, personally, like thousands of others, I haven't had an unpapered dog for 30 years and have no interest in ever owning one again, but everyone knows better and the one needing a papered dog more than anyone in the circumstances was Ms Chivers You have to admire the dedication for someone to fight and protect their dog which is commendable, but a silly slip up to save "ONE" dog has the potential to have "HOW MANY" Amstaffs possibly facing the needle route to Rainbow Bridge There are some good lessons to be learned from this case and hopefully some people have learned to re-access their approach with anti BSL campaigns as to how the best intentions can backfire for the worse.

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong. Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please? You sound very much like a poster named Rex. Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation. No, councils can't add anything to the import bans. They have no power to do that. They do, however, have the power to ban breeds from their council areas. The APBT is included in the importation bans, yet they were not banned from council areas when the customs bans were first enacted. That came later. Councils have added breeds to the bans in the past and they will continue to do so. Read the import bans you quoted yourself. They state that councils can add breeds - at will. No further dogs will be banned from import, but councils will ban further breeds from their cities and shires, as they have done already. The only thing, imho, which will save AST being added to GCCC is Dawn whatsername, the GCCC councillor who is anti bans, and will probably fight in council against AST being added. But with the supreme court ruling, other councils may well add AST to the bans. The local council doesn't need to work under the Customs Act should they be empowered to restrict any breeds at will and could have their own lists. However, they don't have their own list in their bylaws, they refer the list of restricted breeds to the list as per the Customs Act. What I originally wrote was copied and pasted off the Towoomba council heading of "Restricted Breeds" which tells you to refer to the Customs Act. Towoomba council doesn't provide a list of restricted breeds in it's bylaws as an example.

Many of the Amstaff/APBT people claim the two breeds are not the same..........so who's telling the truth, or is the APBT more of a "working line" Amstaff like a working line GSD or Field bred Labrador.......same dog, different leg action

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong. Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please? You sound very much like a poster named Rex. Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs. No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs I think we need to see the "proper" report. There is now another version that Tango is a Staffy??? None the less, the lesson learned for future reference is buy a pedigree dog from a registered breeder or foster papered dogs

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.

The ruling was that Tango is a Pitbull NOT that a Pitbull and Amstaff is the same breed.

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009.

This is a genuine question - why would being an ANKC breed matter in terms of legal action? I can see that politically it means there is a lobby group with a lot of members likely to oppose a ban, but really the ANKC and the affiliated canine associations are just clubs that keep registries and run events. How legally (rather than politically) is recognition of a breed by them any defense against banning or any reason why legal action for damages would be more succesful than for any other dog? It's reasonable to say that if a state organisation for example Dogsvic who list breeds recognised by the ANKC, implies that those breeds are permitted to be kept and is the sole reason a person selected that particular breed. If the breed was banned to the point that dogs of that breed were seized and destroyed, who ever is responsible for banning the breed can be sued for damages created by the loss of their pet. Breeds not recognised by the ANKC or crossbreeds have no official verification to imply that such a breed of dog is permitted to be kept, in other words keep one at your own risk. One could argue that the only reason for investing in the particular breed was because of ANKC recognition.

Agreed Seriously LC, could you show us a video of your dog in competition? No problems, I will organise one

Depends on the reinforcement history and how well the response has been conditioned. I'm not 'purely positive', but the value of an individual reinforcement v level of distraction becomes a non-issue even at my level of expertise. It certainly does depend upon reinforcement history but in the reliability crunch, there will be some distraction somewhere greater than the reward on offer and the dog will bolt, or disobey especially off leash. Diva was right, it is not that the distraction is "greater than the reward on offer" but that the dog is not conditioned, through it's reinforcement history, to respond in that environment. Believe it or not, it is not a competition between reward and distraction (unless we are discussing bribery). Otherwise how would you explain dogs who recall off live prey, not knowing whether there is a reward available or not? That's were a dog trained to recall to avoid punishment works in any environment. I agree with what you are saying here Aidan, but conditioning a dog to respond in so many different environments, there will be one environment missed being the time the dog finds it's fate. That's were E Collars etc come into play, drop means drop so to speak.

You have just confirmed that a "few" SAR dogs are rewarded with food obviously not all which is the point. Yes, the rest are trained with toys. None are trained with praise/correction alone. William Koehler's were................how did he manage that???

That is not universally true. Selecting a few non-specific examples does not the truth reveal. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that positive reinforcement will produce extraordinarily reliable behaviours over thousands upon thousands of trials. Punishment does not produce the same level of reliability in the long-term. Practical considerations, not ultimate reliability, dictate the use of +P and -R in the field. What some of the K9 trainers have told me Aidan, is that some behaviours cannot be corrected effectively with positive reinforcement and punishment in those circumstances creates a better result???.

Just be careful not to confuse reinforcers with antecedents. A reinforcer increases the likelihood of a behaviour. An antecedent predicts it. If food is not an antecedent then it isn't required to produce the behavioural response. In plain english, just because you used food while training the response - that doesn't mean that you will always need food. You can still use other reinforcers, and you can still use schedules of reinforcement. If you need to hide food in your pocket, then you have conditioned food to be an antecedent. That's exactly what is happening with some teams having difficulty with routines under trial rules without active food/toy motivation. Thanks Aidan, it's now making sense why

You have just confirmed that a "few" SAR dogs are rewarded with food obviously not all which is the point. The obedience phase of Schutzhund is made of up several activities using different drives and as we mentioned previously, you can't use any motivators in a trail except voice and praise. Anything used in training has to be weaned off. Generally you take the dog from the crate onto the field and can't use motivating devices on the day. The point I am making is that we have some great training dogs, super performers PROVIDING at the end of each routine some food is shoved in it's mouth or a toy is pulled out from the pocket. Without those motivators on the field the dog's mess up the routines and fail their trials.......happens all the time. The transformation between actively using motivators and not using them in trials presents the difficulty. A great faultless routine in training doesn't gain a title unless the dog can work to an alternative reward.

A few have tried to train police and security K9's with food and positive reinforcement and what suffered was reliablity. Bit different when aggression is involved with dogs in fighting drive disobeying a command than a dog muffing up a trick routine or an agility exercise which doesn't quite have the same potential consequence when reliability is needed at it's most. It depends upon the level of reliability you need from the dog.

You can only use marker words in the ring in between exercises, you can't use them when you are actually competing, can you? Personally I use a marker and release word myself but each to their own, you have highly successful people like Uta Bindels who use clickers and get great results in (Schutzhund) competition, obviously it works for them Can you use food and clickers in the ring between exercises???. Most world level Schutzhund trainers don't use clickers and more train with E Collars on the quiet. The point is, the less devices you need to rely upon to motivate working potential, the better the dogs training foundation for reliability. E Collars are negative reinforcement though............what would the Delta mob think of that :D

You can only use marker words in the ring in between exercises, you can't use them when you are actually competing, can you? Personally I use a marker and release word myself but each to their own, you have highly successful people like Uta Bindels who use clickers and get great results in (Schutzhund) competition, obviously it works for them Can you use food and clickers in the ring between exercises???. Most world level Schutzhund trainers don't use clickers and more train with E Collars on the quiet. The point is, the less devices you need to rely upon to motivate working potential, the better the dogs training foundation for reliability.

I started training in the '70's Huski in the days when your dog was obedience trained properly you threw your leash away and the dog was motivated to work for you with the only reward system being verbal praise..........we didn't use food at all. It would be foolish to suggest that yesterdays dogs couldn't work, they did brilliantly and better than some of today, no food, no clickers and no leash.............so how was that achieved back then I ask the people who claim without food, toys and clickers that you can't train a dog???

What a load of crap! I know schutzhund trainers who work their dogs in prey drive when doing obedience. It would hardly be uncommon! I have no problem with e-collar training, btw Why not use a clicker forever? If you've trained your dog to trial you won't need it in the ring because your dog can work for that amount of time without needing food or reinforcement with the clicker. Most people use clicker training to teach behaviours, unless you stop teaching your dog new things of course clicker trainers will always use clickers. How many dogs who trial today do you think have been trained purely on praise? We all know you can't use food or toys in the ring, yet many trialling dogs are trained successfully with them. Of all the people I know who train in drive, there are many who trial successfully with their dogs and they maintain their drive the entire time they are in the ring without the handler needing food or the prey item on them, because they increase the amount of time the dog can sustain that drive. There is no need to wean your dog off food or prey rewards just because you are trialling. I wouldn't work for no pay, why should my dog? I still don't see the difference between using praise and using food or toy rewards. All are rewarding the dog. If we follow your logic, your dog should be able to work without any praise, too. My dog is trained in food drive and I don't need to stuff food in her face constantly. Still wondering if you think she looks like a dog who is unable to think or work because she's trained with food?? Of course they lessen the time between food rewards... or you'd never get in the trial ring. Doesn't mean you have to eliminate them entirely, though. The reality does not escape me, and if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see I addressed this several times already. You're assuming that a dog trained with food rewards never complies to the handler without food being present. As I said earlier, my dog happily complies to commands in every day situations without me needing food. But when we go to training I want her to work in drive, and I expect 110% focus, fast, snappy responses to commands, I want her full of beans and jumping off the walls excited to work. I don't always want her in that high energy state at home. Because you ARE wrong that dogs trained with food are unable to work well in trials, or that they have less reliability, or that they can't think or work - or that ALL dogs can be trained just as successfully, to the same standard as they are with food/toy rewards, with praise. That assumes all dogs are the same and motivated by the same things. You are welcome when you come up to QLD next to get the same work I get out of my dog just with praise I am more than happy to use e-collars or prongs. I have no problem with corrections or punishment. I'm not and never have been a fan of DELTA training, but that's not what I'm talking about. Clickers.........another device , what's wrong with markers and release words.......same thing, same concept without the need of yet another device not permitted in the ring. Getting a dog used to working with implements not permitted in trials makes for more work. Why use a clicker when you have a voice to do the same thing???

I believe what Angelsun is saying is correct. Food/toy reward is a training tool that must be ultimately replaced with a reward system permitted on the field. In Schutzhund, you cannot have anything on the field or use anything other than verbal praise and a pat at the end of a routine. No food hidden in pockets, hands drenched in meaty smells etc tec. The dog has to work for the handler full stop. Most problems arise with dogs that work perfectly in training with food/toy reward and come trial day they fail rountines when the routine of reward is missing. It's one of the hardest hurdles to get over with many dogs that amounts to the training methods used. You have to get the dog off any reward system other than verbal praise and a pat to trial and title. The dog is on the field too long, with too many routines to await a food treat back in the crate. The dog can't be focused on leaving the field for a reward, it has to work. Obviously, not too many concentrate on verbal praise reward methods and don't know how to do it properly. As Angelsun explained, you don't always have food or a toy in your pocket, but we all have hands and a voice which CAN be used as a reward system successfully to cement into training from the beginning without the need for massive weaning off processes as the reward foundation is already in place. So why does your dog when returning home come to meet you...........for a treat??? NO, a pat and rub, verbal praise and a bit of horse play which the same method can be applied in purposeful training just the same

Yes we do train in prey drive for bitework, not obedience though.........infact many world level Schutzhund dogs are trained with E Collars also

Fasting a dog for up to 3 days is not uncommon to generate food drive, I have had it suggested to me on several occasions and know a few that do it with dogs not overly food motivated. Mine isn't as food driven as some in training and I use a simlar feeding format as you do Huski when training.