Staranais

Tracking or other scent work? If done inside or on a flat field wearing a harness, shouldn't need eyes.

I got my breed for very practical reasons - it is the best working breed for what I want to do. Smart as a whip, incredibly prey driven, very athletic, and eligible for schutzhund. The fact malinois are gorgeous to look at is just a happy bonus! But I do just love staffies and the related bull breeds. Some days I wish I had a little more of that unflappable, stoic stafford temperament in my girl. Sometimes I feel that my breed of choice is more of a full time job than a pet.

That might be a smart way to do it. "Puppy farmer" is a good way to get the public on board, as it is so emotive. But I think it could prove very hard to define, as this thread has shown. Perhaps it would be better to just concentrate on the minimum criteria for any breeder. Or, like someone said earlier, perhaps it would be better to concentrate on accountability for breeders. Perhaps we just need some way of tracing dogs back to breeders, so breeders who continuously produce dogs with health issues or bad temperaments (from either poor breeding practices or poor socialisation), or continuously produce dogs that end up dumped at the pound (from being placed in unsuitable homes, such as from being sold through petstores), can be identified and penalised.

I'm pretty lucky, since I have a dog who looks scary, and likes clack her teeth and bark (with excitement but very, very loudly) whenever she thinks she is going to make a new friend. Tends to put kids off running up to her, and even clueless parents generally stop their kids from approaching. I am amazed whenever parents let their kids run up to or tease a strange dog. It's not common where I live, but I have seen it happen, and it shocked me. Sure, some parents aren't dog owners, and can't be expected to know exactly how to read dog body language. But to let your child tease or run up to a tied up dog is just plain daft. Even parents who don't drive know not to let their kids play on the road. This is the same, just plain common sense. I am also very appreciative of the parents who do the right thing and get their kids to stand at a distance and ask if they can approach the doggie, instead of running up without asking.

I don't think we even use a start peg, in the trials I've watched the handler & dog have just been sent over the fence into the paddock & told to start walking.

I didn't know that Steve, but I think that's great. I have the highest respect for the working dogs in this country, they keep this country afloat (do you know NZ is the country in the world with the 2nd highest number of working dogs, after Russia? I just learned that the other day!) and like I said, would hesitate to join an organisation that automatically classed these breeders as "irresponsible" because they didn't want their breeds recognised or registered by the NZKC (paying good money for nothing but more red tape is how most would see it, IMO). I am so glad the MDBA doesn't do that. Now I'm all keen to join the MDBA.

I disagree. The important thing is keeping breeding records. That is what registries are actually for. Keeping proper breeding records means that responsible breeding choices can be made, because the pedigree shows who the dog's ancestors are. It also means that the dogs produced can be used for future breeding programs by other responsible breeders. People that breed unregistered dogs are irresponsible as they have no way of knowing what genetics they are breeding with and what traits they may be breeding in to their pups. What they do is a waste, as none of the dogs they breed can be used by other responsible breeders that do breed responsibly. I agree with your first three paragraphs - I agree that a responsible breeder will keep records, and do as much research as they can before they breed dogs. I rather suspect the police and MWD people do this. I know that really good farm dog breeders do. They're not interested in producing bad dogs. They want to produce the best working dogs they can, for obvious economic reasons. And to do that, you need to know what you're breeding from. I just don't think that these records need to be kept in an official registry such as the AnKC, or that a registry system needs to be closed, or accessible to the public, for a breeder to be responsible.

One possible answer to your dilemma is that what 'good' registered breeders actually do, should be made the standard for breeding any dogs. And the key things that they do, can be pulled out of the research which concluded they tended to lay the best foundations for dogs' future & welfare. I agree. I don't really care for crossbreeding in companion animals, since I think it rarely achieves desired aims. But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

I only just started teaching seekback when I lost my last boy, but was working on it the way one trialler suggested to me, which is to backchain it. I'm presuming your seekback is the same as ours - basically dog walks at heel, you drop item behind your back, you stop, turn & send dog off to backtrack & retrieve the item? All done in a nice tall grassy field so the dog has to use his nose to find the item, not his eyes? So, this is the way it was explained to me: Start with a dog that can already track reasonably well. Get your dog used to running a short seekback-style track, but do it just like you normally would run a track, with you following behind on a line & big party when he finds the item. Then work on removing the line & having him track off leash. Then add the retrieve element, so you stay where you are & ask him to return with the item to you before the party happens. Once you have the seekback/retrieve bit down, then work on it from the other end & add the formal heeling before you turn round & cue the dog to track. Like I say, we didn't have time to train more than step #1 before I lost my old boy, but if I do seekback with my new girl, this is the way I'll train it (unless I hear any better ideas in this thread)!

And how many of these 600,000 are now in shelters across Australia, have been put to sleep or live in conditions that are detrimental to their health and well-being? And I wonder what % of the dogs that end up in the shelter system are from registered breeders vs non registered breeders? (That's a genuine question, BTW - I know ethical registered breeders make an effort to keep tabs on any pups they produce and ensure they don't end up in the pound, but I also know that unfortunately not all registered breeders are ethical).

I'd add, a responsible owner also ensures their dog is not a nuisance to the community - e.g. by picking up its poo, not letting their it roam, and not breeding irresponsibly.

I think how old depends on exactly where you live, so hopefully someone local to you can answer that part of your question. I'm just answering to say that I don't think it's rude to compete with a dog you doubt will pass, so long as the dog doesn't interfere with other competitor's dogs. So if your dog is under good control & won't ruin anyone elses' trial experience, then I'd say go right ahead & good luck! But if you suspect your dog will break his stay & go say hi to the other dogs in the line up, or dash into the ring next door on his recall, then I think it is more polite to wait until he is more reliable to compete. JMO.

Yes, if the breeder is prepared to compromise the dogs' welfare in order to increase their profit, then I'd still call them a puppy farmer even if they don't actually end up making money. I'd just call them a "bad" puppy farmer, since they're not acheiving their business goals. I don't think we need to worry about that category of puppy farmer so much though - in the sense that, if they're breeding in order to make a profit, and not actually making a profit, I'd guess they'd give up on the whole idea or go out of business pretty quickly. It's sort of self limiting. Whereas the ones that do make a profit are going to keep farming puppies, since it's working for them.

Okay, that's a fair call. I just don't really think it fits into the paradigm of deprivation as I understand it. Because the ultimate question is, does the dog have a "hunger" for play with you? What they want and what they like are two different things. But again, I honestly think that's a matter of degree. My dog likes to eat most of the time, but after a few days of food deprivation, she'd need to eat so for her physical wellbeing. She likes me to stay home all day and keep her company, but I don't believe it is a need - as in, I don't think it is seriously affecting her quality of life that I leave her alone in the house on weekdays. But obviously to some degree, company is a need for her, and it would be cruel to deprive her of it to that degree. My point being, these things shade into each other. There is no one exact discrete point in time when a want for something becomes a need. We can all agree that some extremes of deprivation are abusive, and we can all agree that very mild deprivation (such as only feeding a dog two meals per day, or only giving him the very tastiest treats when he is working for us) are pretty much unavoidable if you want to motivate your dog at all. It's the middle ground where people argue - to what degree is it OK to deprive a goal to acheive various goals?

Yes, I agree. I think cattle & sheep are always opportunistic about what matters most to them - and for sheep and cattle that aren't tame, what matters most is not getting eaten! They're prey animals. So when you have contact with most sheep or cattle, they'll just be concentrating their wiles on getting away from you, before you eat them. Once a cattlebeast or sheep gets to know you a little better and aren't as scared of you, you start to see their true natures emerge, & they can become very opportunistic about food & social opportunities. I've known tame cattle, and several bottle raised sheep, that were as opportunistic as any dog.

I'd be replacing blood with blood, just from first principals. I'd be feeding her lots of red meat (not chicken), maybe try her on some blood sausage if you can get it at a good price. Vit K is used for rat baiting because the rat bait contains something that interferes with vitamin K - not sure if your vet will want to give vit K for bleeding from a tumour.

Yes!! This is how it seems to work for me too. My problem with that reasoning is that it assumes the dog is in a state of "hunger" for interaction with you whenever you are not playing tug with them. Now, don't get me wrong. Erik certainly has ways of telling me he would badly like to play tug now, please. But it's related to arousal levels and expectations. He's not perpetually trying to get me to play with him. Only when he's aroused and has nothing constructive to do with his energy. No, that is a complete exaggeration of my position. It is not so black and white. What I assume is that your dog would like to play with you more often than you are currently playing with him. Not that he wants to play with your whenever you are not playing with him. It's pretty simple to test, I guess. For the next few weeks, go and praise your dog & play with him & feed him exactly like you do as a training reward, randomly throughout the day, as often as you can persuade him to play with you or eat a treat, until he is utterly sick of the sound of you and can't fit another treat in. And then see if he works as hard to earn the praise & play & food as he would normally do when he is "deprived" of them to some degree. I'm guessing he won't. But if he does, then you are correct, and deprivation in any form isn't necessary to train him.

For me, a puppy farmer is a breeder who maximises their profits at the expense of their dog's welfare. I don't care if breeders do, or don't, make a profit. But if a breeder neglect health testing, titling the parents, puppy socialisation, breeds their dogs too often for optimal health, breeds dogs that really shouldn't be bred, in order to make more money - then that's a puppy farmer to me. I also don't think that all bad breeders are puppy farmers. Some breeders may breed poorly from motives other than money (ignorance, kennel blindness, fear of losing valuable breeding stock if they take their heads out of the sand & health test, etc). To me, that's not a puppy farmer, though, that's just a bad breeder. Good topic, Steve.

Well, I'm just using the common dictionary definition. But even by your definition, I would say you are depriving your dogs, in a very mild manner, by only allowing them to access certain rewards contingent on their displaying particular behaviour. To put it bluntly: the rewards only work since your dog cannot access them as much as he would like to when you are not training. Premack. If the dog could access the reward at all times, (in other words if he was never deprived of the reward), then his appetite and therefore motivation to earn the reward during training sessions would go down. This is the change in behaviour that results from not depriving your dog. This would be an observable, objective result of giving your dog access to the reward whenever he wanted it. You say you need not deprive your dog of his toys for him to want to work for them - this is because when the toy is sitting around the house, it is not nearly as exciting as when you are playing with it. In other words, the reward is the exciting interaction with you, not the mere toy. And the dog is deprived of this exciting interaction except when he is performing for you. I do exactly the same thing, as we talked about in another thread. I can leave my toys around the house and my girl will still work for them when I ask her to - this is because she is working for the play "experience", not the toy alone. So between training sessions the deprivation is still going on - she is just being deprived of excited praise & interactive play from me, rather than the actual physical toy. If I played with her like that all the time, to her hearts content, she would have no need to work for it. Get what I mean?

We had another thread about this a few days ago, and I said then that I believe deprivation is a sliding scale. I believe that everyone uses SOME deprivation in their training. To not use deprivation at all you would have to give your dogs all treats, all toys, all attention whenever the dog wanted them. My girl only gets certain foods, and certain toys & games, during training sessions. She does not get them at other times. This is why she will work for them. If she got these things for free whenever she wanted them, she would be less inclined to work hard for them. This is the very basis of reward training, IMO - the dog can only access the reward contingent on its behaviour, and it is deprived of the reward if it does not behave as desired.

Yes, Fledgie is the same, she absolutely loves to learn, and loves to chase & bite things. The only trouble is that she hasn't yet really grown an off switch. She wants to do stuff all the time, and reacts to absolutely every noise in the environment. She'll settle if I tell her to do so, but as soon as she wakes up... it's game on again! So living with her is lots of fun, but I guess a big commitment too. She's very social too, an absolute sweetie with people. Sorry for taking over your thread, Corvus!

LOL, I hope so, Indy sounds like lots of fun to train & trial. And she's pretty!

It's just a piece of leather hide, which I roll up for her to bite - I was too cheap to get a leather tug.

Hmmm, but I think one of the advantages of making sure you are an integral part of the reward is that you can easily use a tug off your body as a reward. When I give the release word, my girl doesn't always spin & jump straight at me, she will only do that if I have already shown her that I have a tug for her to bite. If I have put the tug across the other side of the room while we are working, then she will run to that on the release command & bring it back so I can tug with her. Or sometimes I will start the session with no tug on my person at all, & after I release her I cue her to go find me one, & she'll zoom round the room trying to find where I've stashed her tug, then bring it back to play. So you can train with tug rewards so that a dog doesn't automatically orient to you on the release cue - but IMO you can only do so easily so long as the play interaction with you is the actual reward (rather than the toy itself being the actual reward), so your dog doesn't try to self reward while you are working by nicking off and grabbing the tug before you give the marker/release cue. Kind of off topic, sorry, but vaguely related to your problem I think. Oh, interesting. So his preferences are parade > tug > catching (?) Let us know how you go shaping the retrieve with just a tug & generalising to a ball.