mjk05

Re the pet sheep- I had 3 hand raised lambs from last year's lambing, and they've been put in with the trainer mob (about 15-20 killers and experienced trainer sheep). Initially they were a nightmare to work with dogs, because the 3 lambs wouldn't move off the dog, they'd walk straight past them, they didn't follow the other sheep, and they didn't behave normally with people either. When a dog went around the sheep, the lambs might go with the flow, or they might just go half-way and then decide to turn around and walk straight past the dog. Some of the dogs tried really hard to put them back, others gave up. I think the main problem was that the pet lambs didn't watch the dogs, didn't make eye contact at all, didn't even acknowledge that the dog was there. It wasn't really fair to the dogs, so we used to draft off the pet lambs and use a smaller group to train on. Now, after quite a few months running with the mob, and occasionally being worked by dogs that gave them reason to notice, the pets behave basically like other trainer sheep, and we can work them with beginner dogs. Hopefully they'll form the new core of our long-term trainer mob -we have a couple of excellent training sheep that will live out their lives as trainers, in amongst various killers and lighter sheep, so we can alter the mix for different dogs. Yep (having done lots of training with the same trainer as WorkNBcs)- and its worked well for most. One of mine couldn't care less, but seems to be figuring out a natural cast based on experience. We have been warned about a top local trialler who was using this technique and the polypipe bounced off hard ground and hit the dog in the shoulder, end on, shattering her shoulder. So its not something I'd use lightly. Or maybe try hosepipe or horsepats or softer options. I'm working on stopping the dog if they go too tight, walking in and recasting, to teach them to move out, but its not quite the same as having an "out" command. Anyone read Derek Scrimgeour's basic training book? Well you're quite welcome to visit us some time if you feel like a change , especially for some farm work, help is always appreciated! Nothing like working a big mob for a change. I think some local training days are being planned anyway, to give us all a chance of a change or location and a range of sheep.

Oh, it worked well for some of my dogs, but I've seen some I think it was probably detrimental for. And yeah, all our dogs have to learn to back and work in yards, whether they 3-sheep on the occasional weekend or not, because they're working farm dogs first and foremost, not just trial dogs. Farm work of various sorts (from just moving mobs to yard work) is invaluable for young dogs, I reckon. ETA: I'm not really talking about working the two dogs together, although sometimes that's good to get a pup interested. We've just been having an older dog sitting somewhere nearby, either on the back of the ute or by the gate, or maybe on the fence in the direction the sheep are most likely to break. They aren't working, just there for back up, and if something does happen and the sheep look like taking off, we can just give them the word and they'll put them back where we need them, and then go and sit back down.

Hey, you're quite welcome to come have a play at our place some time, maybe with your next pup We have loads of rocks and trees in half the training paddock (the hilly part), and the other half is nice and flat, so we can use it for a variety of dogs. And I've not had to do any running so far with the youngsters- its the older dogs that tend to get in trouble half way down the field

Heading is really an instinctive thing, its not so much something they learn (so I've been told, anyway). Some dogs are really really strong on the head, and others aren't. Its hard to comment on a dog that has only just been exposed to sheep, because their instincts are still coming out. But I have seen dogs that were on the head to start with become short-heading (just swinging around on the shoulder) with lots and lots of round yard work. That's probably a function of bad training, and the dog, but its a risk in inexperienced hands, I think. I do know some people starting their first dogs who are still doing most of their training in round yards 6 months down the track. I don't know why. For beginners, I actually think paddocks are easier for the handler, because they aren't getting crowded by the sheep, and find it easier to move in straight lines and not obsess about their dog. You feel more out of control the first time in a paddock, but with good sheep and a trained dog as back-up, its actually just as controlled. I have some pics of a 12mo dog we had visiting a couple of weeks ago, having her first time on sheep, balancing up in a paddock and doing walkabouts and starting to learn a stop- but can't find them right now.

It's just like using round yards, though, wally- you need to have the right conditions, and the right sheep. If you have quiet training sheep (same as the sort you'd use in a yard, I guess), they don't tend to run, and an older dog can provide extra cover. Plus if you use the fence, you can get between the dog and sheep and block them up to start teaching control etc just as effectively as in a round yard (in fact I find it easier). Its probably because of not having the right conditions again, but I've seen a few round yard set-ups where the dogs just could never head and balance properly because the sheep just kept turning round and inwards to the handler, so the dog ended up doing laps. Also people often use round yards that are way too small for many dogs. I guess it all depends on your own preferences and the situation, but I don't think a round yard is as essential as people often think. We've been pretty happy starting dogs recently in a fairly big paddock (from 7wk old pups up to adult beginners) and I don't think we'll go back to the round yard any time soon (could be wrong though )

We start all our pups in the paddock now. I originally started in a round yard, my first dogs were started that way, and it worked well for some dogs. But I think many people spend way too long in there, and it can create problems. IMO, round yards are most useful for situations where you are trying to train a young dog without either training sheep, or an experienced dog to help. Also for working on high pressure close-work situations, ie yard work. But you can do all your basic training at whatever age without a round yard- my OH used to train all his dogs just with farmwork, and we've gone back towards that. When we start pups, or even when people visit with older inexperienced dogs (including show and non-working bred dogs), we start in a small paddock (few acres), and use a specific training mob. These sheep are used to dogs, not too easily stressed, and they won't challenge dogs. They will come close enough to people, but if left alone will drift slowly back down the paddock. We use one of our older dogs to collect the sheep at the start of a training session, and for a baby pup, let the pup work alongside the older dog to get some interest going. For older beginner dogs or older pups, we might dog the sheep down a bit with a trained dog if necessary, and then the older dog stops somewhere while the beginner has a go. If things go pear-shaped, the experienced dog can catch the sheep before they get away. To work on tight situations or to block a dog, you can just move over to the fence and put the sheep against it. To catch a puppy, we either block them up with the sheep in a corner, or use a long line. Later on we try to use some lighter less-well behaved sheep, and if necessary the experienced dog can cover at a distance. Our training paddock has some great natural obstacles, like 2 rocky outcrops/treed hills, which are useful for training- eg if the sheep are up in the rocks and a dog learning to cast goes too tight and heads into the rocks, the sheep will scatter and they have no hope of catching them among the boulders. So they learn pretty quickly to head out wide and keep watching their sheep. So far it seems to be working as well for my new pups as the round yard ever did, and better for some. Plus we let the pups do some farm work early on in training, it helps to teach them to think and settles them more than working a few. My recent pup had one of her first experiences on sheep helping her father move a small mob (about 200) across the farm, learning about balancing and how sheep move in a mob, starting to learn a stop at gateways etc, and it's good for dogs with maybe a bit too much eye. If a dog needs more confidence, my OH will often put them at the back of a forcing pen alongside another dog while he's working in the yards, and let them just hold and push. We do have a round yard, but at the moment its around the back lawn as a fence for the new puppies to play inside ETA: to properly answer your original Qs (from my limited experience)- Which type of dogs they are useful for I guess any sorts of dogs at some stage- initially best for dogs that are fairly keen and comfortable with pressure, not so good for softer or less confident dogs. Good for starting pups etc if you don't have the option of starting in a paddock. Later on, might be useful to work on getting dogs coming in close and working in tight situations. Fairly easy to get a dog off its sheep and doing 360 degree flanks and off-balance stops. Might be good for dogs with a bit too much eye, who stick. At what stage Again, depends on why you are using them- see above. We used to use a round yard attached to a race to brush up dogs before a yard trial, but I'm not sure there's any benefit over a real set of yards- maybe its easier to get in position to correct a dog that's not taking commands. Problems you can fix in a round yard Maybe working on flanks and distance etc in a way you might not be able to do in a paddock or on a fence (360 degree flanks etc). Things you can & things you cannot achieve in a round yard You can get interest, start dogs going around sheep and balancing, teach flanks and stop, start off balance work, teach a walk up and reverse and moving off sheep, work on distance off sheep as well as pushing in tight. You can't really work on a cast, although you can get the basics. Can't teach obstacles, can't teach dogs to get sheep out of corners (unless you put more bits and pieces in). What type of dog should not be in a round yard I don't think its helpful for some soft dogs or dogs that can't handle the pressure (blow up or shut down). I've also seen dogs that lack cover do better in paddocks- the round yard seems to absolve them of some of the responsibility of keeping their sheep together, same for dogs that push too hard. But in the right hands I think they can be trained well in a round yard. Problems you can create in a round yard etc. As above- some dogs just can't handle the pressure, and do stupid things in that situation or get intimidated. Others learn bad habits (I guess that's trainer-dependent). Personally I drilled too much obedience in the round yard, without balancing that with outside work to get the dog learning about how to move sheep. Once we got out in the paddock, especially on light sheep, the dog was shocked to find that he caused problems by being too close, and hadn't learned how to cover. Those problems are much worse for dogs without as much natural ability, but I think its possible to overdo it with most dogs. I've seen dogs fall off the head with too much round pen work. Going round and round in circles can be frustrating and demoralising for dogs. But all the above is really variable depending on the size of the round yard and the sort of sheep used- the worst situation seems to be using really dogged sheep in a small round yard (or really aggressive sheep). Knee knockers almost defeat the purpose of the round yard, because you can't get away from them to block the dog, and the dog has no work to do. And I don't think many problems arise if the dog has good natural ability, and experienced handler, and is not kept in the round yard long, or alternates round yard work with more natural work in the paddock, with a range of sheep. The one big benefit of the round yard we've found is that beginner handlers seem to be more happy to have a go in the round yard, because they don't feel so out of control. But with an experienced dog backing them up, and the right sort of sheep, they seem to cope just fine starting all sorts of dogs in the paddock instead.

I don't think that is strictly true. Some breeds have traits (physical, mental, instinctive) that make them more suited to certain activities than others, and individual dogs within breeds vary.

I think a lot of people in my state rehome dogs that don't meet their expectations as working dogs, especially in the sheepdog trialling community. We've taken on a few dogs ourselves for rehoming to pet/sports homes, or working homes with different requirements (eg hobby farmers). Unfortunately not many sports people round here seem interested in rehoming at the moment, they all want working-bred puppies from breeders There are also a lot of "substandard" working dogs on local farms- as long as they don't do anything dangerous or costly, they just sort of hang around. I don't think many farmers like shooting dogs, unless they have a good reason. In general, I don't think many agility/obedience people move dogs on if they don't work out for sports. I've heard a couple of stories of dogs rehomed, but that's Australia-wide, and its more common for people either to persist with a dog that's not top-notch, to find something else the dog does enjoy/excel at, or to just retire them and keep them as a pet.

I think your boy is just fine, jaybeece. Its nice to see a dog with a waist, actually. Especially for a large breed youngster- its better for them to be on the light side than heavy. As long as they are active and fit, shiny coats etc, there's nothing to worry about, I reckon. Some of our youngsters seem to go through a real scrawny phase at about 10 months- 2 years, and we have a couple who are always skinny, but that's their natural weight, they do best at a lighter weight and if they get much heavier they lose fitness and stamina. We do get occasional comments at the park, especially in summer or when the dogs have been working hard and are very fit, but then the majority of city pet dogs tend to be on the overweight side, so people aren't used to seeing the other end of the spectrum. Mud, a naturally skinny dog: Jake, a youngster at the scrawny period: Lethal, an older dog, about as heavy as I'd want to have him: Jack, 10 years old:

Yeah, I know. But some very successful triallers in my region actually do live in the middle of the city, keep their dogs in small backyards and train once a week. Quite a few others have hobby farms, not more than a couple of hundred sheep, and way more dogs than they actually need. Most of the dogs are kept/trained specifically for trials. Exactly. Makes it difficult to draw the line on which people with what sort of dogs should be allowed to "play", I think. And that's the topic, so not too off-topic Me too.

Yes, I agree with that. If most of the littermates (and future siblings) are going to be working dogs, it does give a more complete picture for the breeder of what he/she is producing if even the pet/sports/city homed dogs are at least started on sheep. But how about if all the pups are only sold to agility homes, eg litters from working-bred parents, but bred specifically for agility/pet homes. Same deal? How about people with rescue dogs, that appear to be working bred, but no-one knows where they come from. Same deal? Yep, but there are also lots of us who suck We might have the odd good run, a few average ones, and lots of terrible runs. But if our dog stresses one sheep unnecessarily, is that justifiable? So how do we draw the line between someone who takes 6 months to get their working-bred city dog going well on sheep, with the odd bite and swipe, and someone who takes 2 years to get their non-working-bred city dog going vaguely OK (or even well) on sheep? Neither person NEEDS the dog to work, so whether its 6 months or 2 years, its all unnecessary and "for fun" in some people's eyes. That also starts the whole "trial vs. work" debate. Some very successful trial dogs aren't any good for "real work", they have qualities that make them perfect for the 3sheep trial, with certain types of handling/training. But they don't have the adaptability to do "real work" as well. I know some dogs can- but not all. As a farmer first and trialler second, you need to be pretty selective in buying a dog from triallers who don't farm, or only keep a hobby farm. The sort of dogs that have been bred for generations for 3sheep trials are not necessarily going to cope with the needs of a "real" working job. The only way to really prove it is if those trial dogs are in "real working" homes. So maybe all sheepdog trials should be restricted only to people who actually make a living working their dogs? (I've heard that suggested, BTW) Interesting discussion. ETA: I'd just like to reiterate- I'm definitely devil's advocate here. I come from the city, and agility, and train and trial a rescue dog. Plus I'm training 2 pups who are spayed and whose parents won't be bred again, so they don't have anything to prove or demonstrate as far as breeding is concerned. I really only need the 2 dogs I already have mostly trained for farm work- so the pups are purely for my enjoyment. And I'm insisting on keeping some dogs purely for 3sheep work at this stage, even if they aren't currently working on the farm- because I enjoy it and they are good at that sort of thing. My OH and I have had some interesting discussions on this (all round working dogs vs. pure trial dogs) recently, because he's had 40 thousand sheep to muster, drench/backline last week, and limited dogs that can do that work right now.

Occasionally you do get the odd chance dog that shows some good instincts. I have a friend with a pure show bred dog that met sheep for the first time as an adult (maybe 5yrs old) and switched on pretty much straight away. She does have a chomp, but then so do lots of working bred dogs, and she also has nice pace and distance, and textbook square flanks (with zero training). Her downfall is that she's not fast enough to get around really runny sheep, and tires easily (but then she's older, and has some physical problems), and she's fairly weak (but then so are lots of working bred dogs- esp trial bred dogs). I'm a total believer that working ability is bred for, and that breeding shows in working ability. But there are the odd dogs about (in the minority) that have lucky-dipped some working ability, despite not being bred for it. They don't compare to a good working-bred dog, but they do have some working ability. I'm playing devil's advocate here, so please people don't jump me- but if animal welfare is our primary concern, should city-based people, or anyone with no real need for a working dog, be doing sheepdog training at all? After all, we have no reason to do it, other than for enjoyment for ourselves and our dogs. We might take it super-seriously, we might have very well-bred dogs, but we don't NEED those dogs to work sheep. Plus many well-bred working dogs stress sheep in some way when first starting- either they chase a little, or have the odd swipe or grip, or work too close. Undoubtedly city-based novices won't train and handle their dogs as well as someone who has lots of experience at it, and training a dog once a week often takes longer than every day. I've watched some friends with very well-bred dogs, from international working lines, do once a week/once a month/twice a year training with their dogs, coming along to clinics etc, and while their dogs show heaps of ability, they do occasionally do silly things (stressing sheep) and haven't made as much progress as they could if they were owned by someone else. It doesn't really matter to their owners, they were bought as agility dogs and are just doing this because their owners enjoy it or out of curiosity. But given that they are never going to be NEEDED to work stock- should they be doing it at all? Even if people go on to do working sheepdog trials with these dogs, what's the point? If one animal libber comes along to a working stockdog clinic and sees one of these working-bred dogs with their inexperienced handler do something silly, and a sheep get bitten or stressed, how can we justify that? (remember, devil's advocate- I've come from the city and the agility world, and have only recently needed a working dog)

I've heard these concerns expressed a few times, and understand where they're coming from. I have my own ethical issues with using "herding" or even sheepdog trials purely as a venue for dogs and owners to have fun, rather than as a testing forum for training and breeding effective working dogs. But I have been to a few herding trials, and haven't seen all that much to concern animal libbers. Judges warn handlers to control their dog the first time they bite or snap, and I expect on the second occasion (or if its serious) the dog is removed. I have seen a fair number of dogs chasing in the test classes (esp instinct level)- but given that these are often dogs that have almost no experience or training (and often not working-bred), its not unexpected. The sheep used are super-dogged training sheep at those levels (from what I've seen), and are pretty used to those sort of dogs, so it doesn't seem to stress them excessively. To be totally honest, dogs do grip in 3sheep and yard trials, and I've seen a sheep killed (not by a dog, but still). And lots of these working-bred dogs have a bite in them when they first start training- its just that this doesn't happen at sanctioned events. I think they are talking about removing the instinct test anyway, so all dogs will have a level more training before entering ANKC events.

I think it works the other way around, at least it has with my dogs. Most of them initially weren't that enthralled by jumps, weave poles, etc, but enjoyed the play and rewards associated with training. After a few months, and starting to sequence, the dogs start to get excited at their turn, and more focussed on the agility than the reward. As far as stockwork goes, mine are still just as keen to work when they are doing lots of it on a daily basis, but they do seem to settle down, get more confident and calmer. They get a better grasp on their job, and that probably makes them calmer. Plus they get physically tired, which takes the "edge" off them, gives them more brains and less bounce. But they still don't need any external reward, and never turn down a chance to work.

Fascinating topic. One of my first agility dogs was like you describe with Trim- we tugged etc in the context of agility, but I don't think that was half as rewarding for her as the agility itself. She loved tugging, but would drop any toy (even mid-tug) at the prospect of more agility. I sometimes used food as a "reward" for her too, but it was almost a token- she would accept it, but with little interest, and would usually spit it out immediately and look for the next bit of "work" we were going to do. Tugging and accepting treats was more part of the routine of agility than an actual reward- the whole activity of doing agility was innately rewarding for her. She would also run enthusiastically for anyone else (even total strangers), and understood it was a "team game", but she really didn't need any other reward apart from getting to do it, and praise to let her know she'd got it right. Some other activities she also found innately rewarding- eg flyball, but for others she did appear to value external rewards in the form of play or food. Generally she loved to "play the game"- eg free shaping tricks etc, and would participate with total enthusiasm even with very "low value" rewards, like lettuce I always used to describe her as having a strong "work ethic", she wanted to work with me, and liked to get it right, regardless of what she got in return. But some dog people object to the term work ethic, and don't believe it exists in dogs. I don't know how else to describe it Since then, I've had 2 dogs with lower "work ethic"- both of them enjoy agility, and seem happy to do it, but "need" their reward (usually toys, tugging). If the level of reward drops too much, so does their enthusiasm. Agility isn't innately rewarding, their enjoyment is conditional on the type of "payment" they get. I think they are great dogs, normal dogs. My latest agility dog, a border collie, has the same "work ethic" as the first (if much less athletic talent), and is a joy to train. In addition, he's my favourite sheepdog for jobs around the farm, because even though he's sometimes less obedient, he will try his heart out in the most difficult of circumstances, because he was asked to do it. Do you mean that the "work ethic" of the dog, or how much reward they need, whether they need any- varies on the dog and what they are innately driven to do? Eg my kelpie has a pretty poor "work ethic" for agility, needs lots of high value rewards to keep him keen- but he will work all day in the yards, until he's so tired he can hardly stand, for practically no external reward, just the occasional bit of praise. And if I tried to feed him or offered him his favourite agility tug toy, he'd totally ignore it. Praise is no reward at all in agility, really, he needs play and food, but its all he will accept for sheepwork, possibly because its a marker that he will get to keep working.

To my mind, charging after other dogs is as dangerous as dogs growling and snapping. 2 dogs have been seriously injured at my agility clubs in recent years after loose dogs chased them while they were working (one tore a muscle irrepairably while taking evasive action on a jump, the other injured himself running into equipment trying to escape). And that's to say nothing for the potential mental damage- one of my own dogs was attacked (ie charged by a dog "trying to play") while working, and it took a long time to fully regain her confidence. Dogs will be dogs, stuff happens- but if someone has a dog that repeatedly chases others at flyball/agility/etc (which ARE highly exciting environments), its their responsibility to keep it controlled and safe, and if an accident happens, the least they can do is apologise up front. Hope your lad is OK, Sparty.

No, absolutely not. Its toxic. I believe you can give dogs aspirin in small doses (we have done, on vet advice), but definitely not paracetamol.

Greg Prince said that, I think, in reference to yard trials. I don't think it would be that easy, myself (but then I'm just a beginner)... As I described before, I have a very keen kelpie who is pretty natural in the yards- he likes to back, he's happy working up close and will stand up to sheep that give him a hard time. He's easy to TRAIN, because he's so biddable, and he's my favourite dog for yard work at home- he will work a race for 7 hours straight until he can hardly stand. But in the yard trial situation, he is a struggle. He just doesn't have enough cover, and he will lose sheep across the yard, and blow all his points just getting a tricky force pen entry. That doesn't matter if we're working a thousand sheep all day, but he'll never win a yard trial. He is very obedient, and if I was a decent handler with more trial experience, I could probably anticipate breaks etc, and handle him cleverly so we don't get problems he can't deal with. But I think it would be obvious to observers, and would let us down eventually. OTOH, I ran one of my young collies in his first yard trial recently, even though he can't back or bark and won't stop when he's told (and has rarely set foot in yards). He has some pretty decent breeding (although has his own set of faults)- he was so much less stressful to work, and I think has much more potential. Even though the first dog might have scored better, I think it was pretty obvious to observers which dog was better. Maybe a great handler can make a mediocre dog look great sometimes, but I don't think it would be a consistent phenomenon.

I think its instinct. Cover, stock sense, pace, strength (which I think is just self-confidence), stuff like that. I don't really see how you can explain something like pace or cover with pure drive theory (although that stuff has its place in working dogs too).

Oh yeah, I agree- and I've got the purpose bred dog, plus a few spares. I used those 2 dogs as examples because they are the only 2 of our 19 dogs that have herding titles, and they both have heaps of "instinct", it just isn't a very good combination. I don't necessarily have a problem with the titling idea in ANKC herding, but I don't like the way it has turned out, with people interpreting a pass at instinct test level as indicating that the dogs have "as much ability as any working bred dog" (sigh). And as you said, people are sticking with the stuff that makes them feel good, rather than moving out to the bigger working dog world, recognising their dogs' faults and learning from it. If I hear another person boast about gaining their HIC or even PT, saying that it "proves that my dog has excellent working ability", I'll scream. Frankly the aforementioned (working bred) rescue kelpie looks pretty darn good at the instinct test/basic ANKC trial level, in comparison to most, and he can/does compete at 3sheep and yard trials, plus being pretty handy on the farm- but he's definitely not "excellent working ability", and I'd never breed from him in a pink fit. I find myself thinking, "Your dog has "instinct"? Well, my dog has "structure", it doesn't mean he's got an ideal build for the show ring"... if you know what I mean.

100% agree with that observation, dasha. Plus those people go on to believe their dogs have exactly the same "stuff" as the best working dogs, and if they are able to stay cocooned within the world of dogged sheep and courses to cater for their dogs, they never learn otherwise. That's not to say that they shouldn't be able to get out there and learn and have a go- I have started with a couple of very average dogs, with major major faults and deficits- but I'd rather get honest opinions on them (knowing that I'll keep training and working with them) than be pandered to and told how good they are. But that seems to be an increasingly unpopular view... My thoughts on "instinct" are that its like "structure"- all dogs have it, but some have a totally different set of features that can make them better or worse suited for various purposes. Eg my cattle dog has "herding instinct"- he is very interested in sheep, he wants to go around them and he has a general idea about keeping them together. Sometimes he has a vague idea about bringing them to me, but he's pretty happy to drive away too. His "instinctive parcel of traits" doesn't include much in the way of eye, or cover, or balance- but does include hocking and free flanking, and he's happy under pressure. He's actually a pretty handy dog on a big mob, is in his element on a couple of thousand, where he can just flank back and forth turning the edges in and keeping them moving. My rescue kelpie has instinct- he works with eye and a bit of style, has a nice sense of balance but no natural pace or distance and is very lacking in cover, which is a bad combination- he pushes too hard, fast and close, but then is unable to cover the sheep when they ping off. He's also a bit short heading, I think. On dogged sheep, he can look really good, has lots of push and is very obedient, but on light or wild sheep, he's really lacking. He does back naturally, and is happy up close, so he's OK in the yards, but again is let down by his lack of cover. They both have "instinct", it just doesn't happen to be the right combination to make them great or even good sheepdogs.

Hypertrophic osteodystrophy? Would be worth mentioning to the vet... its not just large breeds (Weims etc).

I've often wondered if those "space bandanas" or coats etc might function as something of an admission of liability, in the event of an indident getting ugly and "legal". Bit like signs saying "Beware of the Dog"- sort of an admission that you know your dog has issues.

Both if you can stretch funds that far, but if it comes down to it, the crate would be first choice. You can put them in the car for travel, take it on holidays or to other houses etc and the dog will still have his familiar "den", and its much more reliable at keeping pups and dogs out of trouble. My pups could climb our small pen at 9 weeks, and the large one at 12 weeks.

I am a doctor. But, as you implied earlier, that doesn't make me an expert on veterinary matters. Fortunately it does give me some grounding in basic biological science, which makes some of the misinformation I read on the net hard to take. ETA: if people are interested in factual info on vaccination protocols, titre testing and the relative risks of various diseases for unvaccinated dogs, I'd suggest contacting your local vet school. I've found that a very useful source of information about many vet issues, and their libraries contain some valuable reference souces