Staranais

What is a quitting signal? Hard to know what the study means without seeing the whole thing, although it does sound interesting.

I've also many times seen the situation where owners bring their large pulling dog to a positive training club for a basic manners course, and leave after 8 weeks of group training sessions... with the dog still pulling. Many of these owners don't come back. God knows what happens to the dogs, but I presume that many of them pull (and get nagged for it) their entire lives. I know you can teach 99% of dogs to walk nicely using positive methods only, if you put enough time and enough brainpower into the problem. I don't know if most pet owners can be bothered with doing that, since it will often take a considerable investment in time or energy compared to a few weeks of leash corrections. For many pet owners, training is a chore, not a hobby. Most pet owners I know just want their dog to walk nicely now. They don't want to spend money on private lessons. They don't want to learn the theory, they don't want to walk round with a treat pouch or a tennis ball for months, they just want a dog that will quickly and completely learn not to pull their arm off. I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect them to try every positive method out there before using corrections. From what I have seen, many will give up in disgust and not come back to the class if they don't get results quickly, or just leave their dog on a halti forever - a good way to manage the pulling, perhaps, but hardly a positive solution either.

Finally got it! She's heavy - would probably be much easier with a smaller dog, I don't think I'd care to carry her any appreciable distance! But it is a very cute trick. Now to train her to get up there without me having to kneel down.

We do this for hind end awareness. It's my girl's favourite trick, not sure why, her eyes light up when I get out the phone book. Was really easy to teach but did take a little time. First taught her to put both front paws on the book on cue, can't remember how we did that, lured her on or just captured it I guess. Then I asked her to target my hand in front of her nose & moved that to induce her to take a step with her back feet, when she stepped with her back foot I clicked that movement to capture it. Then asked her to do more & more steps before each click. Then I faded my hand target until she was stepping by herself on verbal cue. I then put names on the positions so she can flick from "heel" to "front" to "off side" all while keeping paws on the book. Not sure why she loves this trick so much, but it's one of her faves. Helped her understand heel position I think.

The Koehler method for lose leash walking can be a good method when done by the book. I trained my last dog to loose leash walk pretty much that way. And have used similar methods with friends' dogs. I don't know anyone who has done the Koehler method of loose leash walking by the book who has an issue with it. I'm not sure if I'd use it again for my own dog, though. In my last dog, I liked the reliability the method produced, how easy and quick and simple it was to teach, and the way the behaviour required very little maintenance or upkeep throughout his life. In short, it produced a happy dog who didn't pull on the leash, which in my experience is all that 99% of pet owners desire. And it didn't stop me teaching him a very flashy focused competition-style heel later in life using purely motivational methods. I didn't like the way the behaviour was so inflexible. I prefer having a dog who will trot right by my side when asked to do so, but who feels free to roam around within the confines of the leash (without pulling me around) at other times. I don't really like having a dog that will automatically plod by my left side at all times during a walk, which is what the method produces. I haven't used the method with my current girl since I like her to have a variety of walking behaviours on cue. (Also, since I've had her from a baby, she has never really been allowed to start pulling in the first place, hence I have no need of a check chain to fix the problem). I'd also say that I don't particularly like the Koehler method for teaching any commands other than loose leash walking. Pushing your dog into a sit or down until he gets the idea isn't the most inspired way to teach it, for example, and isn't any quicker than using food rewards and a clicker. And the last section of the book about correcting problem behaviours is so abusive that it should not be published anymore, IMO. JMO.

Do you mean "more civil" as in less social & not overly trustworthy around strangers, or as in the dog is social/friendly to neutral with strangers but can bring real aggression to the table when required to do so?

I wondered that too, it is a good point. An interesting article. But to me it seems like it was really a survey of how well trained the dogs were, as much as a survey of how trainable they were.

I havent asked yet, it was just a thought and i was going to ask my vet as well. Because he seems defensive,i thought it might just help give him alittle more nerve and maybe lessen his fast reaction, i want to do whatever i can to help him succeed It's preferable to see a veterinary behaviourist. Vets can prescribe medications, but are not qualified in behaviour until they have completed post-graduate qualifications in this area. Unfortunately this means that they are not always capable of selecting the right medication, and are rarely competent in it's use. Yup, agree with Aidan. If you want to go the drugs route, I'd see a specialist veterinarian. Not just your GP vet. I'd personally give the behaviourist a chance to work it out without the drugs first, though.

Hi folks, just want to make a point about the study posted earlier. I haven't read every single post, so someone may already have bought this up. But "stress" in science isn't exactly the same thing that you or I might mean when we say "stress". When scientists talk about stress, they're generally referring to a hormonal & physiological event, not an emotional one. So a paper saying that a dog isn't "stressed" doesn't mean that the dog isn't suffering any negative emotion associated with wearing either type of collar. In this case it just means that the dog's plasma cortisol (stress hormone), and their heart rate, respiratory rate, pupil size & blood pressure (signs of adrenaline release), are similar for both collar types. The dog could feeling be happy and unstressed, or depressed and unstressed. The paper can't comment on that. It's just saying the dog is (or isn't) stressed. Case in point, I sat through a series of physiology lectures in 2nd year in which our lecturer argued that battery chickens weren't any more stressed than uncaged chickens, since their plasma cortisol levels weren't any higher. According to his definition, he was completely correct. But I still am not personally convinced that the battery chickens were as happy as the free range ones, as he also tried to suggest. Cortisol and adrenaline don't measure "happy". From the full text of the paper, I quote: "The postures of the dogs differed markedly with the type of collar. When wearing the head collar the dogs’ heads and ears were lowered—signs of subordination or fear in dogs (Newton and Lucas, 1982). Overall, the dogs were more unruly and disobedient when wearing the nylon neck collar and had to be repeatedly repositioned for physiological measurements. While wearing the head collar, the dogs behaved in a more obedient and subordinate manner, but fought the leash and pawed at their noses." This head collar effect might be a good, or a bad, effect depending on what type of training you're doing with the dog - I'm not judging, and I daresay the desirability of the effect would vary from dog to dog anyway. I'm just pointing out that the paper says a behavioural effect from merely wearing a headcollar does seem to exist. Apologies if anyone replies to this & I don't check back for a while - in the middle of exams so shouldn't really be here now at all. :D

Yeah, I understand the KNPV vs FCI thing is a bit of a contentious subject! And I'm honestly not interested in the debate about which is the "real" dutchie or which is "better" or whether a dog "should" have FCI papers. But was just hoping to get some answers on the typical differences in temperament between the two types, and which type of jobs the types are typically better suited to. Is either type typically more social with strange dogs & people? Is either type typically higher in prey drive? Do either type typically have stronger nerves? Better hips or elbows? Sharper temperament? etc etc. Still interested in the size question too! And am also still very interested in the different in temperament between the FCI mally and dutchie. From Artur's description his dutchies sound far calmer and less prey driven than my girl (a FCI/KNPV line mally) - since she would not cope very happily with merely a half hour walk per day? And probably wouldn't be ideal for a house with little kids, either?

And your point is what, exactly? That believing that early desexing can affect skeletal growth is uneducated? That's what you said, and that's what I disagree with. There are educated people that believe exactly that. And of course there are specialists that believe other things. That's why I said "some" of the specialists, not "all" of the specialists.

Can I ask some questions (before anyone has answered, sorry!) How does the FCI dutchie temperament compare to that of a FCI working line mally? How different are the FCI and KNPV dutchie temperaments? Are the sizes quoted in the standard typical of dutchies? I've seen some photos of huge ones, definitely over 55 - 60cm.

Personally, I don't desex males and believe that the negatives outweigh the positives. If sterilising a male to avoid unwanted matings, I prefer a vastectomy to allow the dog to develop essential hormones for good health and growth. In a large breed, 18 months is the earliest I would consider desexing. 6 months is the standard answer which research has confirmed as too early in large breeds. Thanks for the uneducated comment to a newbe. What's uneducated about it? It's not factual....it's the persons personal opinion..... research has confirmed 6 months is too early to desex in large breeds? BS to that. Oh, I see. Well, there is probably research both ways. I wouldn't call it necessarily uneducated, though. Some of the specialists at my vet school (for example, my radiology lecturer) also have concerns about the effect of early desexing on skeletal structure, and they're very educated.

Personally, I don't desex males and believe that the negatives outweigh the positives. If sterilising a male to avoid unwanted matings, I prefer a vastectomy to allow the dog to develop essential hormones for good health and growth. In a large breed, 18 months is the earliest I would consider desexing. 6 months is the standard answer which research has confirmed as too early in large breeds. Thanks for the uneducated comment to a newbe. What's uneducated about it?

Stress is one of the biggest triggers for feline lower urinary tract disorder (the catch-all name we give to just about anything wrong with the feline LUT, often manifesting as inappropriate feline urination). Is the cat straining at all when she does urinate? Or passing any drops of blood when she does go? Feeding them wet food can help (not biscuits), making sure they have plenty of litter boxes, and that the litter boxes are clean & in safe locations can help reduce the inappropriate urination. Could also be that she is just marking territory - yes, girl kitties do it too! Again, not "dominance" as such, just a stressed kitty. I'd guess your kitty is really not enjoying having the pup around, even if she appears to be enjoying baiting the pup. I'd restrict your dog's access to the cat. Feliway might be worth a whirl too, but is $$$, and probably won't be a solution by itself.

Malinois Heading dog Huntaway APBT Dutchie A pretty short list

One female dog (12 months old), entire. One adult male and one adult female cat, both desexed.

So I wonder, is there some tradeoff there? I imagine scent hounds were bred to ignore distractions since it made them better at their job. So if you train an uber-reliable recall in your scent hound - by whatever method-, does that mean that the dog is always on some level listening for the recall while it is working, and is therefore somewhat less focused on the scent, and will be less likely to be an exceptional scenting hound? If that were true then perhaps a great recall in a scent hound is possible, but not always desirable, for some working dogs? Just thinking out loud here.

But not to malinois! Sorry, off topic, but the phrase "don't bark for no reason" made me go green with envy. Any excuse to bark around here.

Ok - pardon my dumbness. I never equate "benign" with the word "cancer". I have always thought that if a lump/growth was "benign" it meant abnormal tissue/cells, but not cancerous. I understand about cancerous growths being "encapsulated", but never thought of those as "benign". So I'm wondering how you can have "benign cancer" . Technically you're right, a benign "cancer" is more properly called a benign tumour or benign neoplasm, since the term "cancer" does technically imply malignancy, whereas a tumour or neoplasm can be either malignant or benign. A benign tumour basically doesn't metastasise (spread to other body parts) and doesn't invade surrounding tissue. It can still hurt the animal, mostly by compressing other nearby structures (mass effect), or sometimes by doing more of what the tissue originally did (like make too much hormone). If a neoplasm is encapsulated, that would normally make it a benign tumour, since it's locally contained and not spreading. It's not a black & white definition, though, more of a sliding scale, some tumours are "more" malignant than others, and some apparently benign neoplasms can become malignant if they're not treated.

I would wait longer. I would personally prefer to desex a giant breed after they have finished growing (no sooner than 18 months), especially since he is a male (there are benefits associated with neutering a female early, not with males). Like Black Bronson says, you could vasectomise at 6 months old to prevent puppies.

It is also one of the most treatable forms of cancer and is rarely inoperable... so if you have a diligent owner who actually check their bitch regularly.. a tumour is more likely to be picked up when small and cut out easily.. Depends on the type of tumour. Benign mammary cancer is often very operable, if the owners can or will pay for it. But I have one review saved on my desktop that puts the risk of malignant mammary carcinoma metastasising at about 77%. That's not generally operable - dogs need their lungs. Not to mention the fact that cancer is only operable if people are prepared to pay to have it treated. Many owners will euth a cancer dog on diagnosis.

Maybe, but it is up to the owners to decide what is overwhelming and what is not. IMO of course. Yes, it is. As long as they are given unbiased information, explained in a way that even people without a statistics degree can understand easily, it is up to the owner to decide what to do with their dog. I have left my own bitch entire, for example, for a variety of reasons, even though I probably will not breed her. But I do want to say that IMO although that article you posted was interesting & in many ways valuable, it did IMO underplayed the risk of mammary cancer by not explaining the absolute risk increase. For most breeds, compared to the other cancer risks/benefits associated with desexing, the increase in risk in mammary cancer is overwhelmingly huge. An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms. In most breeds, no other cancer is increased by desexing nearly enought to counter that. For example, in real terms, on average, hemangiosarcoma increases from 0.2% to 0.4 - 1% of bitches, and osteosarcoma from 0.2 to 0.4% of bitches, after desexing. That's more than an order of magnitude difference in risk levels there. I think the article could have done more to emphasise that. Edited so my grammar actually made sense.

Also depends how common the cancer is originally. i.e., an increase of 10% to 20% in the risk of getting a cancer matters far more to any sensible dog owner than an increase of 0.1 - 0.2%, yet they are both a 100% increase in risk. There are definitely health downsides to desexing as well as health benefits, but for most bitches of most breeds IMO the health benefits of desexing outweight the risks. Rotties are a possible exception, especially in lines prone to osteosarcoma, since it's sadly so common.

My mally girl does the same thing - snap snap snaps at my face to say hi. I don't mind her doing that as long as the teeth don't actually touch me. She knows that teeth aren't allowed to connect with faces (or with any other part of me). I have no issue with growling at her if they ever accidentally do. And IMO it's her job to make sure her teeth don't connect, not my job to get out of the way of them!