Erny

Terminology interpretation tends to change fluidly. "Dominant" or "dominance" has become a 'dirty' word because of negative connotations being assigned to it. Even "Leadership" is by some attracting the same negative assignations. Maybe we need to "assert our authority" by stopping mis-interpretations evolving to negative connotations :laugh: . Either one of your dogs is expressing dominance ( there's THAT word ) by marking over the scent of the other, or you have one with urinary incontinence. Which I think brings us back full circle to your initial dilemma enquiry. Next step is to check which one is the 'soiler'. If they are crate trained and you can retain them to a crate each over night, you might be more assured to find out?

You are absolutely right Erny and I should have quoted the whole post to show those words in context which would then have put my negative judgement in context. :) :) Reading back to that post, I still can't see the implication where those words would have conjured some over-bearing, powerful image. But hey ..... :) :)

That reads as though you think "asserting authority" relates to ego, or pushy behaviour? Nothing wrong with "asserting authority" in my books. Teachers in a class room of children need to "assert authority" from time to time. They are in charge of and responsible for what happens in the class room. The above is an example of "asserting authority". Can't see anything wrong with that. You stop your dog from doing something s/he wants to do but you don't want it to do. That's "asserting authority" too. So what's wrong with that? Just as for teachers, dog-owners are (or at least, should be) in charge of and responsible for what happens to and by their dog/s. The term "asserting authority" should be taken in context and not automatically judged with negativity. IMO :)

Keep working/training with him - remember, he is only a 'kid' (so to speak). You're still guiding his behaviours as he matures.

Any time that suits and/or is appropriate. The game of tug is one example. What you do with your dog depends on what your dog is inclined to think of as fun. We have one dog at class who isn't so much into "tug" (only mildly) but loooooooves a bit of a quick goof around and goes spare (in a good, fun way) when I say "scratchy bottom!" ( go figure) and muck around with giving his back a bit of a scratch as we run around a bit. When you've established a game (and the rules of the game) and your dog has come to understand and anticipate it as reward (or more particularly, as motivation) for obedience and other good behaviours, you can use it as a motivator against and or as a reward for ignoring those things (ie in your instance, other dogs) in the environment. Through your consistency in motivational training, your dog can also begin to learn that fun stuff comes from you and that although other dogs are ok, they don't provide the entertainment that you do. ETA: Follow the "Triangle of Temptation" protocol - it's a sticky by Steve - K9Pro at the top of this forum. That's an excellent way to teaching voluntary focus and enhances general obedience training.

What sort of play/fun activity do YOU provide? Is he learning to look to you for that? Make your goal for him to anticipate the fun as coming from and through you, rather than your conscious or primary goal being to greet other dogs calmly. That can be your secondary goal :).

Product much supported by PETA and Animal Rights Activists. I don't believe the homeless-dog problem (in this Country at least) centres in the majority on over-dog-population.

For her though, that would be a bit of a "no-brainer". IOW, a smidge of mental stimulation but not anything much that would tax her thinking skills. Turn this around and rather than making it a case of her deciding which toy she wants you to play with her with, start getting her to work (do something you want her to do for you) for a toy that you want to play with her with. This is just one tip, but it may catch on. Work her mind much more, rather than focusing only or more on the physical element. Make the physical exercise a reward for her using her noggin :). And yes, it's great for dogs to have the opportunity to stretch their legs and have the freedom to stop, pivot, sniff and carry on with running again. So perhaps try to find somewhere in or around your area where there may be a fenced area you can have private access to and drive there? ....... and put some guards around your plants whilst you're putting the mental stimulation plan into practice. Every time she de-plants a plant, she's gaining the reward of fun out of it and this by itself can become habitual.

Hhhhmmm .... wouldn't want to take your purposely kept entire/intact dog to anywhere it might accidentally eat this "desexing food". Leaves the door open to foul play?

If he settles once you have left, this is not Separation Anxiety, more like a learnt expectation not being fulfilled. SA is over diagnosed these days. You want your dog to learn something, be consistent. You don't want your dog to pick up on and precipitate your behaviours - randomise.

Assign - you're in NSW. Can you get to see Steve (K9 Pro)? He's in your State. Things to suggest for you to do in and around the home depend on what you already do or don't do. The instigating contact is one thing. But whether it's being done as clearly as it could be is another thing. There's NILIF program (google NILIF, it'll give you the explanation of what this is about, but in essence, it's about having your dog work for everything he gets - very worthwhile program to follow). There's where the dog sleeps. There's the structure and rules in your household and the consistency with which they are applied. Woven in amongst all of these things is your attitude, which ideally is calm, assertive and fair. Ask yourself, what is your partner like around your dog, that is different to you? Sure, sometimes it can simply be a gender thing (girls often being the 'softer sex' ..... standing by for women's lib ) and dogs can pick up on this. Be definite about what you do. Don't express or reveal your doubts. It's easy to read the written word, but sometimes it is misunderstood, misinterpreted, or a component simply not recognised. Which is why seeing someone such as Steve is something I think you'll find useful. It also makes a big difference to us Behaviourists when we can see yourself and your dog together, rather than writing 'cold'.

For those who don't want to watch it. The dogs were in a fairly close grouped drop/stay. Fire-works/crackers where suddenly ignited in the midst of them. The dogs broke and the handlers choked/pulled/corrected via strong leash corrections. The dogs were panicked. The dogs didn't return to the drop (they'd been startled into hind-brain mode, so no room to think) and so the respective handlers uncomfortably and roughly wrestled/forced their dogs to the drop. Most dogs were hunched and really didn't know what was going on. Stupid stupid. Doesn't do the word "training" any justice. I only saw damage being done, no good.

Then it is quite likely a behavioural thing, rather than a medical one :D And don't hesitate! You want to sleep in their beds, you go for it girl!! :laugh: .

That "instructor" needs some serious head-reading and a change of vocation. Poor dogs - talk about a good way to not only sensitise them to noises (and whatever else in the environment they'll pair the event with) but also to destroy all faith and trust in their owners.

I think that about sums it up :) Yep sure does BB. Erny has this uncanny knack of cutting to the chase. ..... It's about looking for and at the good stuff rather than focusing on the one (in your mind) negative. Reverse thinking :D. But Westiemum ..... have there been any inappropriate soiling incidents since the dogs' sleeping arrangements have changed?

Not intending to take this off topic but if you're making a brief reference to the current Victorian laws that affect our dogs on the basis of aesthetics, the point is that the Government and the Councils they have empowered with their disgusting laws are seizing dogs forcibly from their homes - dogs who have never done anything wrong and who are great with other dogs and people and who are not a nuisance to the community. Consequently, temperament testing in that respect is a non-consideration by the authorities as that doesn't even come into the equation with those laws.

I like that you're doing what you can to minimise chemical applications to your dog, Sail_Away. I strongly work that way as well, where possible and feasible. Have you tried natural insect repellents? I've read of one where you save the peel from citrus fruits, boil it up to create a broth and let it cool. Strain it and put it in a spray bottle to apply to your dog. I believe certain oils such as lemongrass, peppermint, geranium and lavender (there are more) also repel mosquitos and a few drops of these can be added to your citrus broth spray at well. I expect the oils would have the added advantage of staying on the coat and remaining effective for longer than the citrus broth, but that's just my guess. My boy cops the mozzies as well and I intend to give something like this a try, but I can't attest to its effectiveness. ETA: I've just started using a natural base disinfectant for the food area in my kitchen. It contains peppermint and the label on the bottle says that this helps to repel flies and other insects. Not that I have a lot of flies in the house but of the few that make their way in I do tend to find they aren't hanging around where I'm cooking.

I don't work in a pound, Raineth, but I don't think Victoria's shelter attitude is all that flexible as it might be for where you are.

I've been reading with interest and appreciate your informative replies, DianaR. But I can't help but think along the lines of Sheridan in respect to the above. Too many instances that I've been informed of where the dog was 'difficult' (for the shelter testers and for the dog in a foreign environment), the shelters are full or close to full and so these more 'difficult' dogs are pts to make way for the *cough* "MacDogs" to come through and be re-homed. This very much falls within the economical interests of the shelters who are paid for dogs that are pts and also paid for re-homes. Would the new temp testing that is being created open doors for dogs who would otherwise currently be pts, or are we running the risk of more doors being closed than there already is? The faulty laws that Government have introduced (with the support of certain rather well-known orgs) in spite of their own acknowledgement of its faults and in spite of many who raised issues against the laws when they were still in 'proposal' stage, I think have caused a total mis-trust in agenda, and understandably so. How can anyone trust that a shelter will not develop a blanketed and bias attitude to any dogs who fall outside the "MacDog" criteria? We're already experiencing this in Victoria where the criteria for "What is a PB" (based on asthetics) is being split more and more to the point of even being more ridiculous and grossly unfair than it was in the first place. Is it possible that these temp tests will actually take us unwittingly down that track, to open new laws that decree dogs who fall outside that criteria should be targeted as dogs not suitable for anyone anytime?

Think of it this way ..... "Poor puppies - on the floor, nearby your bed, on soft blankets, inside the house where it is warm and draft free, sharing your company as a pack". I think your dogs have a pretty good deal regardless of them not partaking of your personal bed-space :). Good luck with finding out what's going on with the urination problem though. Not sure of the behaviour history, but in the absence of that I can't see why the act of urination can't be behavioural. Have any urinated on their own beds since being relegated the privilege of having one to themselves?

Thanks Boronia. That's a big help. I'm in touch with them now :).

I agree, Kavik - that is what they usually mean. I think it is disappointing that they pick up on those things only yet dismiss the warnings given about 'those' sorts of methods as well as dismiss the other of what he imparts. A bit like throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Getting back to the original topic how do they KNOW that they have a APBT and NOT an AST? is it just a case of calling what they like better? If you look at any topic where an accusation has been made that a pit bull has been involved in an attack, it appears the only people who can identify one are those who have them and sometimes not even then. I can only say what I know of our Victorian law - but in our instance it is only an AST if there is an ANKC breed certificate to say so. If not, then it is a PB or PBx (FYI : ANKC breed certificates to prove other breeds, don't count and aren't considered, so if you have an ANKC registered Boxer, for instance, you're not necessarily off the hook.)

In the current Victorian law (which is flawed and sucks big time), it is based on "type" and that "type" is what fits a description that has been set down as a "standard" by the Government. Not only is it a matter of a dog fitting the said "standard" in terms of description, but the law is being exercised by those empowered by it that they assert "partial compliance" to any specific body-part that is covered by that (so-called) "standard". So, for example, if a PB's tail is described in the standard to "reach the hock", then a tail that goes beyond the hock might get noted as "partial compliance" of point. Tick enough boxes with these "partial compliances" and your dog's a PB, so says the Government. The way it is working here is that a dog who is a Boxer could possibly fit the Pit-Bull "standard". It's all a bucket of crock.