Black Bronson

It's only people who don't like the method will tell you that corrections are crappy training which is only an opinion. I think having people mess around with head collars for two years and when the collar comes off, the dog bolts like startled chook is real crappy training when the dog's hopeless without restraint. Dog's need to learn the consequences of good and bad behaviour and be able to make the choice for themselves with a clear definition what's likely to occur in both cases. Not allowing a dog to experience the effects of bad behaviour IMO is unfair on the dog.

Just in addition to my previous post, it is still quite common to see dogs dragging their owners around as they gasp for air, constricted by the check chain being used incorrectly. I certainly wouldn't say that things were any better in the old days. Putting aside the lack of training aspect, I would rather see this sort of dog in a head halter or harness not pulling than being choked by a chain. At least they are getting walked and everyone is happy. Yes exactly.........so instead of teaching the owner how to handle the dog properly and train it, they suggest a head collar instead My instinct when seeing a dog dragging it's owner around on a choker, couging and spluttering as the owner cannot keep up with the dog, is the need to try and teach the person how to handle and train the dog.........like give me the leash and I will show you. Those coughing, choking dogs walking their owners are out of control in a big way and their owners need some serious help :D

Yes I have, but generally by trainers that are not good at teaching the training concept. In fact, I have known some great trainers who can train a dog themselves extremely well, but struggle teaching someone else how to do it.

I'd be disillusioned by any trainer who didn't show the client how to train the dog, I'm not sure what it has to do with the equipment they use? I'm also not sure why you would insist that a head collar is a gimmick just because it is relatively new? It's quite simple, they give leverage. If the dog is stronger than the owner, they address the power imbalance. That's it. They do not train a dog to walk close to you and neither does a prong collar. You train a dog to walk in close proximity to you using lots and lots of reinforcement - and that goes whether you use positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. On leash or off-leash. If someone needs leverage (dog chases cats for e.g) or just needs to take the dog for a walk before they are reliable on a flat collar, you use a head halter. I have a friend who weighs 45kg, her two dogs (now deceased) both almost outweighed her. She used head halters on both dogs every single day. These dogs had obedience titles, had never pulled on the leash problematically, and had excellent off-leash obedience. She was just being pragmatic. I just explained my reason for the "gimmick"..........pulling was rehabilitated easily long before the head collar was thought of..........dog's don't pull any differently of late than they did 100 years ago. Pulling isn't a new behaviour that has just surfaced in recent times to an untrainable epedemic requiring a head collar. There were far more nice walking obedient dogs in the times where a leash was rarely used after initial training that managed to be trained very well on a piece of rope..........what's difference now..........same dog different trainers???.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion on head collars here and it may be true in some cases, but it is certainly not the way a head collar should work. Behaviour analysts figure out if something is aversive or not by using functional analysis and overwhelmingly head collars are not "constant aversives" (or non-contingent aversives), nor is that how they work. They leverage the handler so that the dog is not reinforced for pulling and is reinforced for coming back to the handler. The front-attaching harnesses work the same way. Observational bias is a funny thing, if you spend time on a forum where people say these things about head collars you will tend to notice only those dogs who are shut down (or more likely, habituated). The challenge as a critical thinker is to notice all of them. A couple of weeks ago I watched literally hundreds of dogs walk past as my daughter and I waited to use the bike track during the Million Paws Walk, and the biggest problem that I saw was habituation to both check chains and head collars. I didn't see any shut down dogs that I would have attributed to equipment. The majority of dogs on head halters were walking normally, on a loose leash. That is the intuitive assumption that people make and I suspect that this comes from our culture and not science. The fastest learning occurs where the organism is set up for success and reinforced. A head halter sets the dog up for success then the owner can reinforce (usually with food) the behaviour we want. The biggest problem with the head halter is that it is a "discriminating stimulus" - a cue, i.e the dog becomes "collar wise". I get around this by using a double-ended leash attached to a normal flat collar, gradually you reduce dependence on the head collar to set the dog up for success until you don't rely on it at all, and then you remove it entirely. You get the same situation with a prong collar or check chain. There really is no advantage in this regard (in fact, there is a disadvantage if you are not using +R also); but as I said before, each piece of equipment has it's pros and cons. Aidan, aren't we trying to re-invent the wheel so to speak???. Leash pulling as I mentioned before is an extremely old behaviour and was easily corrected long before head collars and harnesses were marketed as behavioural management tools. In years gone by, off leash obedience determined a training system's credibility in the days when many people didn't even own a leash and didn't need one obviously prior to leash requirements by law. Considering that loose leash/no leash walking had been acomplished for so many years prior to the head collar/harness marketing tells me that these tools are more a gimmick than a worthwhile necessity for teaching a nice walk. Personally I have trained several cronic harness pullers that people have been working with for 12 months with little gain and established a loose leash walk with a prong collar in 30 minutes.............with the owners totally gob smacked how this could achieved so quickly. I am really disolusioned by some trainers advice that people have hired to correct leash pulling and they advise a head collar or harness...........what the hell for???. As I also mentioned previously watching some Cesar Millan videos recently regarding cronic pullers, IMHO, Cesar does it right, perfect infact with great results.

Yes, but a prong collar (or a check chain, martingale etc) has the advantage of being able to give the dog a quick correction only when needed, ie you give the dog a command and he either complies and is rewarded or does not comply and is corrected. It's more precise IMO. Unlike a head collar that works by acting as a constant aversive when it's on and manages the behaviour that way.. I've seen plenty of dogs that will walk perfectly on a halti but as soon as it's taken off they are right back to square one again. I'm sure that you could train llw with practically any tool if you are using the right method but wouldn't a correction collar provide a much clearer picture to the dog of what you are asking for? And therefore learning would be much faster? Correct The check type system is easily switchable with a distinctive difference between no aversive and corrective action. Head collars and harnesses don't provide the "switching" that the other system provides.

You don't see any contradiction in that at all? No Aidan, there are training tools and management tools and a difference between the two. Every time someone posts about dogs pulling on leash which I might add isn't a modern trend behaviour, infact leash pulling no doubt would have surfaced way back when the first ever dog was introduced to a leash long before any of posting here were born, but irrespective of that, the harness and head collar suggestions keep flowing. Sure thay can manage the behaviour and lessen the pulling effects, but generally speaking, they don't correct the behaviour, only manage it. Take a harness or head collar off a dog that is managed that way............and it's all over the place most of the time without it. A dog properly trained to walk nicely shouldn't need a leash at all IMHO A prong or check chain can be used as management tools also (and often are). In either case people need to train if they want flat collar or off-leash loose-leash walking, we seem to be in agreement on that. The contradiction is that you are also "resorting to a management device" when you use a prong collar or check chain. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, either way you need to train. All tools have pros and cons. To be honest, I haven't seen too many dogs being managed well with a choker or prong and due to the dog's continual pulling, choking and coughing often leads to the harness and head collar to avoid the choking. The idea of the choker or prong is teach the dog to walk nicely not a management tool for poor behaviour as the harness and head collars are used for. The harness and head collar does work better as a management tool, but doesn't teach the dog as well.

You don't see any contradiction in that at all? No Aidan, there are training tools and management tools and a difference between the two. Every time someone posts about dogs pulling on leash which I might add isn't a modern trend behaviour, infact leash pulling no doubt would have surfaced way back when the first ever dog was introduced to a leash long before any of posting here were born, but irrespective of that, the harness and head collar suggestions keep flowing. Sure thay can manage the behaviour and lessen the pulling effects, but generally speaking, they don't correct the behaviour, only manage it. Take a harness or head collar off a dog that is managed that way............and it's all over the place most of the time without it. A dog properly trained to walk nicely shouldn't need a leash at all IMHO

Watch some Cesar Millan videos rehabilitating cronic pullers

IMHO, if you are resorting to management devices, head collars, harnesses etc to stop a dog pulling on leash, the training process is completely wrong. It's not about finding a tool to improve the behaviour it's about setting boundaries and teaching the dog how to walk properly and using a tool that will provide a correction when necessary. Someone mentioned that their dog "put's nose to ground" and pulls............first step I would take is not allowing a "nose to ground" situation if that's the pulling trigger. Timing is the crucial factor correcting a dog on leash I believe which ultimately requires a good trainer to teach dog owners how to train their dog. Watching some Cesar Millan videos the other day rehabilitiating cronic pullers, his corrective timing I noticed was superb.

I know that was a keyboard slip Lanabanana, although it was rather amusing I thought

I can never understand that reasoning Puppies are cute and enjoyable, but are also a pain in the bum. We embrace puppyhood and easily forget how much work they are, but when they become adults is when dog ownership becomes truly satisfying IMHO

I don't think it's really a case of being in the dark ages, it's more of a physical advantage with a male, no seasons, no mood or temperament changes and greater size and power. There are some large bitches, but there are also tiny bitches too. There is a massive size difference between a bitch on the low end to a male on the high end in a GSD for instance and probably in a puppy, a male presents a better opportunity at reaching a desirable working size. I definitely wouldn't discount a bitch if selecting an adult dog to train for a specific working role when you can evaluate and compare adult traits, but I can't see myself every purchasing a female puppy for a working dog unless having breeding in mind

Corvus............you are on the dog forum

Yes, definitely hiring a good trainer would be best IMO I would use a prong too SecretKei

Wow, I have learned a new swear word today!!!

No the attitude would be if the DOG cannot come up to standard snip and find another hobby. No matter what the gender. You bias yourself before you even try it out. Yes in security and schutzhund I think its the macho mentality that keeps bitches out. They're shit, they're hormonal, they're unreliable. Crap. I would and I have. I know a couple of other people that do as well. Entire as well. IF a dog has drive a season will not reduce her to a shivering mess, in fact I have seen maturity of attitude, more ferocity and improvement after every season. My bitch is 6 1/2 now and she keeps my males in line, and she is my fearless protector. I think preconceived notions and sterotypes prevent bitches being trained, not the fact that many many people have actually tried and failed. You know what its like, the males go training and work and the bitches stay at home ot have the puppies. That is a mentality that is THANKFULLY changing. Do you know Max von Stephanitz preferred bitches as working dogs over males? They were more responsive to the handler and bonded more closely. He thought males were a bit too full of themselves at times and I agree, as much as I like working them my Malinios is incredibly responsive. You want to preserve the breed and talk about working dogs make sure you have a read up on history. Bitches can be fearsome fighters and workers AND still produce the pups that go on to perpetuate the breed. There are injections to stop bitches coming on heat, greyhounds are on them so they can race. I am going to start these now with my girl to see how she goes on them as I simply am running out of the time to deal with another season. She always wants to work and train for most of the time she is on heat as well so I dont see it as a barrier. Yes a female can work well no argument in that regard, but very few will work as well as a male in any Schutzhund, K9, security type of work. Neither will many world level trainers recommend a female to achieve a top performance working dog. I am sure people like Ivan Balabanov if we are talking Malinios, would have bitches as good as yours to choose from Nekhbet, but he recommends a male in preference to a female for serious sporting/security work. Why would someone with the credentials of Balabanov recommend that, if equal or better performance can be obtained from a female???

Correct Even having a dog with natural defence and fighting drive, if untrained in defence and getting into a scrap, you won't control them at the height of aggression and could easily result in serious consequences one way or another.

What a fool What I don't understand, why did he tell the rangers who he was.........could have been a visitor from Perth for all they knew, just a bloke walking a dog in a public place

What a horrible thing to happen.........so glad your doggies are ok. It's funny I always have this confidence not becoming a victim of house break in's having 2 GSD's that have the run of the house and back yard with a doggy door, but dogs can act differently when no one is home. My boys are sport trained and could definitely get a commanded bark and hold from them against an intruder perhaps a bite, hopefully enough to scare the intruder away........but what they would do without handler control if I wasn't home is a good question

Personally if she was a good worker, I would keep her entire, but would depend on what work you were doing with her. In Schutzhund competition if she couldn't beat the boys I would desex and retire her as a pet and work her for fun or a training dog for people new to the sport. I wouldn't work a female as a security dog by choice, but she would be worth trying her out desexed. Thinking about what we have discussed in this thread, I would probably desex her and see what difference it makes to her working ability to see first hand how the theories stack up.

Correct Jesomil............from my original perception of working desexed females in your example of the GSD, is a complete and total wasted exercise IMHO I can't understand why so many import males..........personally if I was to import a good dog, it would be a female without question :rolleyes:

She didn't say Schutzhund, though, she said "Personally, I don't understand why anyone would use a desexed female for performance/sport in the first place. A sporting female IMHO should be trained in work/sport as a proofing foundation that the line is work/sport capable and then used for the breeding of a proven and titled bitch. " And then you questioned why I'd bother to trial desexed dogs. I'd hate for people to think that they shouldn't bother approaching a top working dog breeder about a pup, or even getting involved in sheepdog trialling, just because they don't want to breed or would prefer to have desexed animals. That's the impression that you (and BB, even if she's talking about Schutzhund) have given in this thread so far. Are you sure? I know quite a few desexed dogs trialling, but I don't think anyone would pick it. I know a few infertile ones too, and dogs that aren't going to be bred from for other reasons. One of the most recent Australian 3sheep rep dogs is desexed. ETA: I don't think you'll get anything other than anecdotal evidence as far as sheepdogs go. Personally I prefer to have entire males, mainly for physical reasons, so I'd desex after physical maturity and not at all unless there was a reason for it. But I find desexed bitches more stable- you don't have problems with bitches getting moody or going off their work around seasons. mjk05, I totally agree with the preference of working entire males and most serious working people in many disciplines have the same idea which leaves many females out of the system to evaluate their working ability. I am more looking at the situation if someone is prepared to work a female in a dedicated way, work an entire female because if she turns out well, opens up a breeding possibility. I think to work a desexed female for the breeds future and improvement potential is a waste of time. I understand and agree that seeing the working potential of desexed dogs from a particular line provides guidence for where the line is heading, but you can't use the super dogs themselves that possibly should be used in the breeding programs for better potential again. Using a sister of a great desexed female doesn't always mean that the sisters genetics are equal, especially if the sister has never been worked, I would prefer to use the actual dog that has the proven workability.

No it's not. The reason I started the thread was so that people could discuss their oppinion regarding desexing of female dogs - Do they agree with it, at what age do they think is appropriate (if at all) and does it differ for performance dogs involved in certain sports? To a degree I think that has been achieved. There have been oppinions from working line enthusiasts (Schutzhund, working sheep dogs, racing enthusiasts (greyhounds) and also oppinions from those involved in ANKC obedience, agility, fly ball and other sports. Can I say that I have been surprised by the difference in oppinion between these people? Nope! Not at all. Did anyone really expect them to be the same? Different needs for different owners. And that is what this thread is about That might be the situation in BB's case- but she's saying that she doesn't think anyone should work or trial a desexed dog at all, not just in her situation where there are so few good quality bitches... And I wonder if there might be more good quality bitches if people were encouraged to participate with desexed dogs, so even people who don't intend to breed can get involved, the market for pups increases, and those people might change their minds later and keep their next dog entire. Keeping a working test/sport exclusive to breeders doesn't help to improve the working population of a breed. The other problem with her argument is that she seems to think the best way to breed good trialling dogs is from good trialling dogs, which it isn't. It's from producers of good dogs. So yes, you need to work your dogs to know about their working traits first, but then you need to assess not just their ability, but that of as many of their relatives as possible, and how those dogs reproduce and with which other lines do they best reproduce, before you decide to breed. I got the impression that BB was referring to working dogs within their breed and sport only. And as someone who is interested in one day participating in that sport I have found this discussion to be very interesting. I do think it is worthwhile to hear why BB feels that desexing is inappropriate in schutzhund/working line dogs as it is a valid argument in the case of that particular sport. I also think it is worthwhile hearing why others disagree with this argument when it comes to their own sport. Schutzhund, military, police and security K9's are the same line of dogs, and the individual puppy may end up in either home or working discipline. Schutzhund is the prooving ground for breed worthiness, working ability and character. There are some slight variations that work better in some disciplines or lends it's self to some discliplines better than others depending on the individual dog. A dog with a low threshold to aggression is difficult to handle as a Schutzhund or police dog and is not a desirable trait, but as a security dog it can be of an advantage for example. Desexing can take the courage and stablility away from the dog which in this line of work and sport, courage and stability is an essential part of the dogs make up to able to handle pressure and in some cases is life threatening. It's said to take clear headedness away from the dog under pressure and alter the aggression threshhold. I can't say from experience working a desexed dog for comparison but that is the general rule of thumb. Females are not generally used in these disciplines in any large quantity as a male has a scoring advantage in Schutzhund and other working activities are larger and more powerful and the sex of choice for serious work related training along with the downtime of seasons being a female disadvantage also. However many breeding bitches are never worked or assessed at all and are often bred on a relationship basis to a good proven dog in the ancestory and then mated to good proven male in hope for the male's success to carry the litter through. Not every puppy from a working litter will necessarily have the desired traits and if the bitch has never been worked or evaluated, it can be more guess work in the breeding than a calculated potential. Very few great dogs are jagged from untested bitch lines but many poor quality bitch lines have produced only average puppies. Most great dogs have been produced by good parents down the bloodlines that can all work well. Some bitch lines haven't been worked for 5 generations resulting in a situation where just a bitch is mated to a good male in hope to improve the lines. A good proven bitch being 50% of the offspring genetics has more potential to improve the breed than taking a wild guess which IMO happens too often. More females need to be worked and evaluated to determine more conclusively where particular working lines are heading.

All of us at our clinic won't use the drop down menu options if its a oodle thing !! all three of us will type in the oodle X floodle, It really annoys me that all the major practice software has the designer dog names on the dropdown menus fifi That's bloody wrong and much of the cause for people to think the breedings are legitimate breeds which only serves to encourage the puppy farmers to breed and charge rediculous prices for them. The only way to stop them IMHO is a law to prevent dog breeding unless licenced which accomodates only pure breed dogs. Absolutely , The lack of catering for the consumer in pure breeds is what drives them to the oodle and BYB farmers. My comment was referring to your post about how 'bloody wrong' it is that vets cater for the clients by calling their dogs what the owner believes it to be. So do we cater for them or not? Or only when it suits? We tried that with a friends GR cross GSD once and they wouldn't recognise a Golden Shepherd and said it was a cross breed Shouldn't the same apply with an oodle Seriously though, doesn't the ANKC have a procedure for registering a breed???. If the breed isn't recognised as a ligitimate breed, it's a cross breed