Cosmolo

I'm interested too Corvus.

I have some interesting personalities in my pack- extra exercise makes no difference to my fearful dog. My Jack Russell has a great off switch BUT can go on 5 x 1 hour walks in a day and still be ready for more. It's not that he won't settle because he does but he can take as much exercise as you want to give him. None of my 4 other dogs could deal with that amount of exercise.

Found it- hope this helps.

One of the problems in these situations is the lack of reward history in context. ie- We take the dog to a distracting situation and the level of distraction being so high is then made 100 x worse by the fact that there is such infrequent reward for the dog. Consider your training at home- dog is compliant= pleny of reward. Training in distracting environment= no reward.

Now from our people point of view we say- the dog won't take food, i can't reward the dog because he/ she is behaving so badly. This makes sense to us. But not to the dog. The dog comes to learn that in distracting environments, there is no opportunity for reward from the handler. (But plenty of fun can be had bouncing, pulling, leaping, whining etc)

So what do we do about this. Firstly- short periods of time only. The more occasions where you have the dog there not getting rewards from you (remember the reason why doesn't really matter- we know it's because he's behaving poorly or won't take rewards but it's irrelevant to him) and getting excited and frustrated, the worse the problem will get. Secondly- i would get him out of the car and either drop a handful of food on the ground or if his focus at that point is okay- feed him from hand immediately. If he looks for more, feed him. If he doesn't, feed him. If you get to a point where he won't take food- either in time elapased or distance from the distractions, you have gone too far.

I call it the bank account of reward history- and you need to start increasing the balance- dramatically. Teach him that this environment is about rewards from you- as soon as there is some reward history then start the LAT game. Build value for the LAT game by doing 100's of repetitions when you don't need to- at home, on regular walks etc. Use anything as the LAT distraction, not just other dogs. If you do enough reps like this, the effect of classical conditioning will then allow you to have more success when other dogs ARE present.

MANY dogs are labelled as unmotivated when the problem is actually a lack of reward history which in turn leads to no expectation of reward. If the dog does not expect it, they can't anticipate it. If they don't anticipate it- all their energy has to go somewhere, and it's going to go away from the handler.

I will try to find a post i made about a similar issue recently.

That makes sense. The more i train dogs the more i realise how much we don't know yet.

Do you think it's always that simple Aidan? I have seen cases where extra exercise makes things worse and others where it makes it better in dogs of similar temperament.

I think this is a very interesting topic- particularly because the difference/ variation seems so significant between dogs. I think there are a couple of points to consider-

- Firstly, i just want to mention that i think SOME dogs are simply not taught an off switch. I am sure that's not the case with the more experienced owners here but we do need to be careful that large amounts of exercise are not simply a substitute for teaching a dog to stop and settle.

- For those dogs who are less anxious and less reactive with more exercise i believe that this may have something to do with the chemicals released upon exercise. EITHER these particular dogs require MORE of that chemical in order to be less anxious/ reactive OR the brain does not secrete ENOUGH of these chemicals for the dog to be satisfied with a normal amount of exercise. I think there has to be a physiological explanation like this.

- I think a very important factor is HOW the dog behaves on their walks. If the dog is reactive on their walk, i think sometimes less is more when it comes to exercise. The more frequent the reactivity, the more likely that the dog can be in a constant state of arousal and has insufficient time to get back to a chemical 'base level' if that makes sense.

Look forward to everyone else's thoughts

I'd agree with that Pav lova. Personally i'd actually be happy for their to be some kind of dog assessment AND an owner assessment for ALL dogs over a certain size. While small dogs can do terrible things as well, i know what i'd rather encounter.

But i'd also like to see councils go after the people breeding the dogs in the first place. Working at the tail end is not ideal.

Sorry to say and i am NOT suggesting this is the case with anyone posting on this thread but there are some trainers and training schools that hand out prong collars like lollies- because they are 'quicker' or 'easier'. No consideration for the fallout of incorrect use and what happens to the dog while the owner learns how to use it etc. Too much focus on a tool can also come at the expense of reward rates and reward history, creating handlers that are quick to correct and slow to reward. It doesn't have to be this way of course- i am just suggesting that care should always be taken with ANY tool that has the ability to correct at a significant level and the we need to consider how a tool is LIKELY to be used before giving it to someone, not just how it SHOULD be used.

I have seen the results of many an inconsistent or inexperienced owner who has been handed tools with high levels of corrective function (not just prongs) straight off the bat and it's not pretty.

While i am not against prongs i really hate the argument for ANY piece of training equipment that says "when used correctly they're great". To me, this is not the only consideration. The two following questions should be- what is the likelihood of the device being used incorrectly, ie- how hard is it to learn to use? AND- what is the fallout/ consequences when it IS used incorrectly? Some devices are harder to learn to use correctly than others and some have worse fallout than others.

Now before i get jumped on, i actually think a correction chain has worse fallout when used incorrectly than a prong so this isn't an anti prong post. This should apply to every piece of training equipment and these questions should be asked in every situation. I just dislike the 'when used correctly' argument.

And generally, the less effort someone is willing to put in to training, the less likely i am to provide to them a tool that has high levels of corrective function. I have no issue with any tool being used by those willing AND able to be educated in it's correct use.

I can't find a link to it at all but did anyone else see the story on The Project tonight about the dogs for children with disabilities? When the mother of an autistic child said "It's like having someone help you without judging you", i confess to being a little teary!

Beautiful story, wonderful training and special dogs.

Perhaps she is now not relaxed enough at night for it to occur given the corrections she has received in that context. Back to the vet for medication for sure.

I shouldn't need luck. Good management, socialisation, containment and training should be enough. And that's the point.

Sounds like incontinence to me. I have a bitch here who developed this as she got older, once on the medication she was fine.

What Megan said.

It is completely irrelevant to the legislation how i keep, train and contain my dogs. They can still do exactly what Megan has described- regardless of how responsible i am. How on earth can i and people like me be responsible for our own destiny in this situation!

My dogs are locked inside the house or a secure run when i am not home. On occassion, one of the dogs spends a few hours in the backyard when i'm not here which is double gated so if two gates/ fence would need to fail for my dogs to get out. I will not walk my dogs with muzzles and dangerous dog collars- they have done nothing wrong and it would cause unnecesary stress AND draw attention to them. My neighbours are aware of the dogs and have no issue

Despite all of this if i get a new neighbour, walk my dogs and someone sees them and takes exception to them- they can be reported and council can come knocking. How on earth is that fair and how would that mean 'i failed them'? Ridiculous.

I kno plenty of pure breed dog owners who don't do all of those things! Especially walk them in muzzles for no apparent reason.

DOL defaults to QLD steamboat- if you had actually looked at the whole avatar you would have seen that it said Melbourne and we have been talking about Victoria the whole time.

So what do you suggest people like me do with our cross breed dogs that fit this standard? You still haven't answered this question. I understand that you agree with the onus being on owners to prove their dog is not a pit bull- what you haven't answered is HOW owners should do that?

Owners who will now NEVER adopt a dog that could even remotely resemble the standard in future are still in impossible situations with their current dogs now!

Does it? I am certainly in Victoria, as i would have thought my posts indicated.

ETA It did say QLD, underneath where it said Melbourne! Fixed now.

And thanks Megan, i think they are pretty special.

You can't prove otherwise though that's the point. This isn't only about ignorance of laws, though i agree with other posters that the average dog owner still has no idea what these laws really mean. It's about new laws being introduced AFTER a dog has been adopted- no one knew they were going to have to prove parentage when they adopted their dog and in actual fact, it wouldn't even matter because if the dog meets the standard, it meets the standard. Doesn't actually even matter if you can prove what their parents were.

How do you propose owners of cross breed dogs prove their dogs are NOT restricted?

Dogs that are registered with local council can still be identified as restricted breeds and forced to be kept as such so i'm not just referring to people who do not register their dogs.

The legislation goes BEYOND Pit bulls. Have you even looked at the standard! The standard has been around for 5 minutes. People who adopted dogs before it existed had NO IDEA it was going to be made and NO IDEA that it would be done in such a way that their dogs who are NOT pit bulls could be targeted!

What a good girl Lucy was- all of your hard work is paying off. I thought it would be a given that repeat offenders would need to work on lead?

I have also used the Troy Behave with sucess in some dogs.

Who said anything about being forced to buy a dog from a shelter? You've missed the point of my post.

But i think you're missing a major issue. When we adopted our dogs aside from what the shelter called them (which is what Avergae Joe would believe mind you) we did not believe for a moment the dogs were pit bulls OR pit bull cross breeds- i have done plenty of breed id in my life and know a bit more than average Joe. The Vic legislation goes beyond pit bull and talks about a 'type', a dog that fits the 'standard'. How do you expect that people should have known about that before last year!!?

I agree with you pavlova- it's what i would do and what i would recommend any of my clients do. But it doesn't help those people who already have dogs pre dating the legislation.

Genuine question- who has more responsibility in the situation where EITHER a BYB or shelter or rescue group rehomes a dog to a new owner that meets the standard? Should the rescues/ shelters not be rehoming these dogs? Or should the adopters 'know better'? How about the people who brought these dogs into the world in the first place? None of this addresses the injustice in the law but it's important to consider how this law is going to be enforced in this way.

You still haven't answered my question.

And of course you're not meant to be impressed- but a large number of posts on a forum suggests that the person is not a troll.

Flaunt the law and thumb their nose at their victims? Who do you think is doing that?

I strongly believe that people who own dogs that commit offences should be punished- severely. But pre-emptively going after dogs that look a certain way (we're not even talking particular breeds here- just dogs that fit a set of physical characteristics) does NOT work and punishes people AND dogs who have NOT done anything wrong.

Do you care to answer my question now that you are aware i am not a troll?

And what do you mean by "Why am i not surprised"? That i am female?