Just Midol

You never have been, and are not now a member of the ANKC, you know nothing about them, yet you presume to speak for them. You have NFI whether they care or not, and you are not likely to find out whether they care or not yet you are once again spouting off about something you have no knowledge or understanding of. And probably wouldn't understand even if was explained to you using small words or not more than 5 letters. I doubt the ANKC would support a ban, unless they were put in a position where they needed to support it. You wont understand that either, but others here will. Here ya go: 1.The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies totally and unequivocally oppose the practice of training of a dog to attack humans or any other animals, or of causing dogs to fight. We totally support any State or Federal laws that would outlaw this practice. Such practice is an offence against Member Bodies Regulations 2.The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies encourage and support the interaction and mutual enjoyment of man and dog in all sporting activities catered for by the many disciplines encompassed within their jurisdiction.We believe that dogs should be properly cared for, humanely trained and not pushed beyond reasonable limits, for the respective breed's capabilities, whilst competing in the various disciplines. http://www.ankc.org.au/home/inner.asp?pageid=53&mainid=2 RE: Attack Training and Sports.

Obviously these results are generalised, and it depends on the temperament of the dog and it's physical growth but lets be simple for one day

I guess it comes down to that different courses for horses thing (or is it horses for courses?) - we all have our preferred method, neither is right or wrong, the methods we use just happens to suit the majority of dogs we come across and works for us.

No no, you've got it all wrong. It's 100% genetic, environment plays no role in this at all. A well bred dog should be fine with: - Helicopters. - Jets. - Huge parties. - Trains. - Boats. - Cars. - Loud noises. - Storms. Without ever experiencing them before, it doesn't matter if the dog is in a highly stressful environment when he experiences them, good breeding will see him through. Socialising (or neutralising) to these things is irresponsible and should be avoided at all costs.

Just on this. I can only speak about Montu, you obviously know he is neutralised. If someone, including kids, comes up and pats Montu he looks at them... enjoys the scratch then walks away. If someone is scared of my dog then neutralisation is perfect, as it means he'll show very little interest in them which allows them to be comfortable around him as he won't be continuously approaching them, looking at them or just interacting with them, he will however, let them pat him.

BTW, neutralisation whilst technically probably refers to a value of 0, in practice it doesn't so it's possible for a dog to be neutralised AND hold a slight positive value.

According to Dermcare, Permoxin binds instantly so no need to seperate. Just don't go spraying it directly on the cat! I've been using it on my dogs for years and have two cats. It's really the only product that works when there is heavy flea burden. Good to know, my vet told me 4 hours but that might have just been a "better be safe the sorry" and a "cover my arse" comment :p

I thought having fun was a given If it's not fun for both my dog and I, then I won't do it.

I do believe police, security, protection and some sport dogs are neutralised. Whether it is done actively or in the course of their training/work is irrelevant to me. I've never taken my dog out specifically to neutralise him to people - it's just occuring naturally as everyone ignores him I neutralise Montu for the obvious reason, I want him to have no interest in other people or other dogs. I'll neutralise any future sporting dogs as Schuhtzhund was created to measure a dogs working ability and I feel you should raise a schuhtzhund dog in the same way you'd raise a working dog. I'll neutralise my future pets/rescue dogs as the only non-working dog I'll ever own is a Husky. They are hard enough to get recalls in without them placing high values on everything. I don't care which way people go, both have benefits, both have percieved negatives (I say percieved as the negatives you'll see for neutralisation I don't consider negatives, and the negatives I spot for socialistion you probably won't agree with ), but when people start calling me cruel for neutralising my dogs then I wont be impressed.

Hey, look, I am being called cruel again. Yay for us, we're all cruel! Toller, it's not that you disagree. Lots of people disagree with me and I don't believe they have no idea. I feel that you don't understand these methods because you've NEVER seen them performed successfully and you've NEVER performed them successfully. That's saying something really. You've said over and over that you've never seen a dog trained on a prong collar (to loose leash walk) able to loose leash walk once it is off. Numerous experienced dog owners & traners posted saying they have. It's all in the method, and if you can't achieve that, then you're doing it wrong. Horus, true, but she asked how I do it. I know my timing is perfect. Obviously when learning to use a correction you should have someone experienced teach you, but I figured we're so far OT I didn't need to mention it. MonElite, the method works fine for me, and has been effective with every dog I've used it on. I'll continue to use it till it fails, then I'll try something else. Of course, I don't even use a prong anymore. --- I'll throw this out there. I sort of do disagree with check chains. I don't like the way they apply the pressure. IMO, everyone using checks should move to prongs. JMO of course.

Dog already knows he controls the stimulation. Dog applies pressure to lead, I turn on stim, when dog moves back, I release. Sometimes I guide the dog (stop) but not often, as I accidentally taught him to sit the first time -.- Dogs has now figured out that pressure on lead = uncomfortable. All without a command. I don't want to issue a command every time my dog pulls. ETA: It's easier to see how I do it in person, rather than me explaining it. ETA2: Forgot to post the prong version Dog pulls, correction. Dog pulls, correction. Dog pulls, correction. Dog couples pulling with correction.

You do in the method/s I know.... including avoidance method. You didnt tell the dog a command when you were TEACHING it to walk on loose lead? No heel, no walk, no slow, no nothing? How was the dog to know what to do? If you know exactly what avoidance training is that you know that you can teach the the dog ANY command by avoidance method. Looking at the handler is just another motion for the dog, you can teach attention by avoidance too. There are some not so bad old videos on how to do it, not Leerburg, I unfortunatelly cant remember by whom, maybe someone else will tell us. Okay.

Yeah, it's great stuff. Make sure you use it with water though, not sure why, but the bottle specifically states that for ticks you use water and not metho. I missed this for over a year before realising

what do you call interest? A responce to a call/command? If yes than my answer is yes. If its not than Im speculating on whats your definition of interest and lets say its my dog following me all the time pestering me for something - than my answer is no. However - like with any tool used in an avoidance training - yes you can use a prong to teach a dog to pay attention to you. Actually replace the words ecollar with a words prong collar in you ecollar manual and you will get the idea. Should I write what is avoidance training? to make this easier for you to understand? When teaching loose leash walking you don't issue a command... Not all training requires a command, and I don't want the dog to show interest in me. He has to listen to be, but showing interest implies he is watching me which is something I DO NOT want in my working dog or my huskies. I know exactly what avoidance training is, try being a little less pretentious.

Along with any correctional tool, since it was used to correct the dog for not being interested in the handler. You correct your dog every time he doesn't show interest in you? Personally, I correct my dog for doing the wrong thing. I don't use any of my correctional tools to force my dog to show interest in me, in fact, using one in that manner on Montu would be ridiculous and turn him into a pathetic working dog.

Everyone except a few select people, mostly rescuers ETA: I'm not saying everyone should take on dogs with aggression, just that I'd personally have no issue doing rescue with aggressive dogs. In fact, I'd be more likely to rescue dogs with problems as then I get more experience fixing said problems.

Sorry to hijack but as you are up sunny coast way what do you use for ticks? I am asking as we are coming back up to visit kids and grandkids and Im bringing my pup who will be 13 weeks and as they live bush (Carters Ridge) am trying to work out what is best for her whilst up there. Strangley enough when we lived out at Lake MacDonald our old girl got tick poisoning and was treated successfully and then never ever got another tick or flea, bizarre I use Permoxin. I did use frontline, was crap. Doesn't even handle fleas up here. For just fleas, I use advantage but when ticks appear I do weekly sprays of permoxin (with water, not metho).

Its not really that simple though LM. Whilst most rescuers won't take on dogs with aggression there are very good reasons for it. The majority of rescuers on DOL (if not all of them): (a) have a surplus of dogs without aggression dying in the pounds they deal with. (b) lack the skills (or their foster carers lack the skills) to deal with truly aggressive dogs AND dogs with other behavioural problems. Then there are other compounding factors. As an example here in Albury/Wodonga, a rural centre, the pressure is on even more because we're it for the dogs of the area. Taking on any dog that will be in foster care for many months means that other dogs just as deserving or more deserving die. Also - our nearest behaviouralist is 3 hours drive away meaning that the costs of getting that help goes up, not to mention wear and tear on the rescuer's personal vehicle, costs of petrol which is always paid out of the rescuer's personal pocket and time away from other dogs. For ADR I can quite categorically state that we can't afford to add $500.00 plus to the costs of any rescue without raising funds - we're doing well when we have $1,000.00 in the bank. Then there is the question of how do you decide which dog you spend the money on - is it better spent on the dog with a health condition but no behavioural issues? There is great personal satisfaction to be had from assisting a dog with problems to be a regular member of canine society and I would love one day to be able to take on dogs with issues and work through them but I can't justify doing that when dogs without issues are dying and when the money and experience required to assist the dogs isn't available. I'd hazard a guess that most rescuers feel the same. To compound the issue here in Victoria (which is half my area) we have to work within laws making it illegal to rehome dogs with known issues (fence-jumping being one). That's my point, they probably share your view. Caring and rehabilitating those pitties wasn't cheap, and it costed a lot more than it would to care for 40 or so dogs without issues. They probably felt the money could be better spent on dogs without issues. Everyone will jump on major organisations for saying it, but when people say it on here, in the rescue forum, it's considered right and responsible.

<removed - cbf - will discuss training somewhere else> ETA: Though Adele, do not read that ridiculous hostage page. The owner of that site and article has no idea what is involved in neutralising a dog. Neutralising is lowering the value dogs have for other objects (not lowering drive, two entirely different issues with some people confuse.)

I give up, the ignorance surrounding corrections & aversions is ridiculous. Those who oppose them, at least in this thread, clearly show they have little (aka no) understanding of how to use them.

Actually, HSUS euthanises, or supports euthanising any dogs which come from aggressive backgrounds (dog fighting & human aggression). It isn't simply because they were pitbulls. I disagree with their stance, but the majority of rescuers on DOL agree with it, and won't take on any dogs with aggression.

*sigh* if you that's what you gained from my posts I would hate to know how you expect to understand anyone elses posts.. training and leadership go hand in hand, you need both to be successful. If you only apply training and dont care about leadership you get a dog who wont listen to you all the time, especially in tempting situations. if you apply leader ship but no training, you have a dog who respects you but because it has no training so will not respond to anything you say because it wasn't trained to understand those commands. exercise, training and discipline are the three things dogs need for a balanced relationship with you. If you don't supply all of these you will find problems. I don't really agree. I think you can get both: 100% compliance with poor leadership, and, 0% compliance with perfect leadership. It might be easier if you have great training & leadership, but imo, they aren't both required. I think obeying obedience commands have very little to do with leadership. It's all about perceived benefits for the dog, if the dog will receive no benefit for not performing (or no punishment) then there is no incentive to carry out the command, especially if it is doing something more interesting. Your original point was letting a dog get collar smart does two things; 1) Reduces the dogs interest in the handler. 2) Fails to build respect (which I think is wrong, the word should be leadership. They have different meanings). I don't see how any training aid (collars) builds interest in the handler, unless you correct the dog for not showing interest in you but even then that's not the collar or aid building interest, it is the handler. You've still not explained this point. Building respect... I don't even see how this is relevant when it comes to using an aversive. I build my leadership in many ways, but when I wack a prong or an e-collar on my dog my goal isn't to increase my leadership, it might happen as the dog learns I am boss (receives an aversive/correction when he ignores me) but it isn't my goal... So failing to increase or enhance leadership isn't really an issue.

So if your dog views you as the leader it should automatically know what you require of it, and give 100% compliance? ETA: My dogs are robots, the batteries go in a slot below the tail.

I hope they're insulted, they're not very good trainers if they don't know how to condition. I'm not entirely sure I'd consider then experienced trainers if they don't understand the basics of using training aids. It's not something that's tied in with the aid, it's common with all aids. Ahh Midol, Midol, Midol I really shouldn't laugh at you but you are making a fool of yourself and I am enjoying watching you do so You're ignorance isn't funny, it's sad. You're the only one laughing, incidentally, you're the one who is wrong. But isnt that also a problem when the dog becomes collar smart. This would mean your dog is reliable when hes wearing the prong, but once you put the flat on he loses all interest in you, so in that theory you haven't gained the dogs respect which is why he is also collar smart. The only thing achieved is your dog now wont pull when you have the prong on. It hasn't achieved any respect from the dog nor his complete attention. Just a thought.. As for check chains, I would restrain from using them on a puppy as they are still prone to more damage when young. I think you can get just as much success with any training tool you use if you do it right and work hard. However I dont think you gain the same amounts of respect from each training style, I think it varies, and it also varies depending on the personality of your dog.. Some dogs trained in prongs are brilliant, others may break down into a nervous wreck because they have a softer personality. I think it really depends on the personality of the dog, its trainability and your leadership ability. What training methods improve respect? Continuously handing out treats? Dogs become collar smart when you screw up. Using a prong has nothing to do with respect and I don't see how it's even relevant. BTW, even if the dog only doesn't pull when the prong is on it is still an achievement. Many people can't walk their dogs due to pulling, so even if the dog becomes collar smart if it means it can be walked then that is a plus. Since when has the prong been used to keep the dog interested in the handler?

Dunno. Pretty sure she said seeds but I might be imagining things. I suspect flowers do it too so probably pollen? BabyDragon/Blossom, wet grass is actually better for him. If the grass is wet, he gets nothing!