Greytmate

I would suggest a mini schnauzer pup is not a good choice. They are a feisty little breed that loves to be involved, they are very clever and require more training and exercise than some other breeds. It is a myth that a dog will exercise itself in a large yard or that a larger dog always needs more space, time or exercise than a smaller breed. If they don't get the right amount of exercise they will be a handful to control and you can get behaviour problems. Given that you have had a bad experience with basic training in the past, you would be better off waiting until the kids are older or buying a less demanding and energetic dog. There are much worse things dogs can do than push kids over. It is important to closely supervise and control all interaction between a pup and a toddler, no matter how big or small the dog. Pups often want to contact kids faces, so the smaller the dog they higher it will jump to achieve that aim. It's a dog thing more than a breed thing.

I saw that. Every time Dogs Victoria wrote something about Dogs Big Day Out on facebook they were attacked by rescue people - and we were told our purebred dogs are all badly behaved, useless, poorly bred dogs. Put a very sour taste in my mouth about rescue. Is this the general attitude of rescue groups? No it isn't. There isn't a general attitude of rescuers any more than there is a general attitude of anyone else. People and organisations have their own attitudes. This is a purebred forum and it has a lot of rescue people here. Dozens of the rescue people come here to this forum and don't abuse breeders, some rescuers are breeders, so why would you think it was a general attitude against them? If you don't want all breeders lumped in together, byb with registered breeders, then don't assume that all rescue operates the same way either. It's just as wrong.

You don't seem to understand dog breeding very well. Your dog is a second generation crossbreed. As long as you keep coming into threads and claiming that the breeding of your dog could have produced the reliability of traits found in a purebreed, myself and others will keep coming in to remind you that you are wrong. By pushing your point that your cross-breed dog has specific purebreed attributes you are perpetuating a myth that cross-breeding will produce predictable traits. Dog breeds were developed through culling and careful selection, much more so than by outcrossing. Your second generation out-cross is not a breed and not a good example to be constantly bringing up on a purebreed discussion board. Please stop with the explanations about your breeder, we have heard them before and it doesn't change anything. You choose to enter so many threads and needlessly talk about your own dog, don't be surprised when people make comments.

You bought dogs from the pound, not from rescue, there is a big difference. If the point of this topic is to show that good breeders should not be lumped in with the byb and pet shops, it has been lost on you. There is no such thing as 'pound/rescue'. You bought your dog from an organisation or different organisations and there is no reason to assume that all rescue organisations or pounds are the same or have the same level of quality control. Coming onto DOL to whinge about rescue as a whole just because you had a bad experience with your own dog is just as offensive as the person lumping registered breeders in with brb and pet shops on Facebook. Jacqui you are wrong about health testing in rescue dogs, and you are wrong to claim that your dog was carefully bred or well-bred. Your dog is cross-bred and its genetics are quite random. There is far less risk in adopting an adult dog from a good rescue organisation than there is to buy a cross bred pup like you did from a byb. The special qualities you ascribe to your dog can be found in just about any breed of dog, hence their popularity as pets. However the problems you report having with his behaviour are quite unusual in most breeds and very undesirable. Very disappointing to see people jumping about to vent about rescue, when all prospective dog buyers need to be careful, regardless of where they buy the dog from.

There are rescue groups placing young adult rescue dogs just as carefully as I was placing greyhounds. It's important to ask questions about what they do to avoid problems in the dogs they rehome. I think there is a problem with buying a puppy of unknown breeding for a particular purpose, or even as a pet. Some rescuers will disagree, but I can't see how you can always weed out the puppies that will develop serious problems later. Once you have an adult dog, a good foster home assessment will give you the best possible understanding of every facet of the dog's temperament. Whether the dog is a pound rescue, a surrendered dog, or a dog run on by its breeder. It takes weeks to understand the dog and see it in a range of situations. I guess I am sensitive to this topic after reading a lengthy topic in the Rescue Forum here, where many rescuers are upset at what a minority of 'rescuers' are doing on Facebook and how the over-zealous ideas and activities of some 'rescuer's can lead to big problems for new dog owners. The difference between ethical and unethical rescue is as big as the difference between ethical and unethical breeding.

Start a topic whinging about (a few) rescuers that lump all breeders in together, then take a swipe at rescue as a whole, saying it's too risky for you? Most hypocritical thread ever.

I'm sorry you have had such a bad experience with rescue. My suggestion is to find a good one next time. Your reluctance to rescue again because you went to the wrong rescue organisation is is just as bad as the ones telling people not to go to any breeders because there are some bad ones around. All people buying dogs need to do their research, there are dodgy rescues and dodgy breeders out there. Just because you dealt with an unethical rescue means that they are all like that. Nobody needs to deal with major dog issues, and so ethical rescue is conducted in a way that is going to reduce the chance of problems happening.

Ok. In this little bit, the dog has learned that if it jumps on the door hard enough, it will open and you will come out. The dog needs to learn that if it jumps on the door, nothing good will happen. Ignoring the dog is the slow method. The fast method is setting up a negative reinforcement for the dog if it jumps on the door. That's where my 'balancing bamboo pole method' (mentioned earlier) might work. The longer term training aim should be for the dog to learn that the door will only ever open when desirable behaviour is being displayed. I would be looking at how the two differ in their excitement. Maybe they will need to be dealt with differently and separated quickly. Sometimes my two get overexcited in the house and start to play inside. One needs to be calmed down properly, he responds well to verbal commands, and one just needs to be restrained gently for half a minute until the wild look is gone from her eyes.

If you wanted to go down this path you might need to start slowly then build up to returning from a prolonged absence, e.g. walking out then straight back in again then training the behaviour you want. Then walking out to the front yard then back in, then when they've got working well go around the block and then back in -> train -> repeat, etc. This is good advice. I am having trouble understanding what is happening. If you let them inside they go crazy and you can't catch them? If they are outside they go crazy jumping on you? Or around the yard? It sounds like going outside to them is the best approach. But if they are jumping on you rather than running around, could you take hold of the collar and restrain one of them to see if they both calm down? You can use long, slow, firm strokes along a dogs back and sides to physically calm a dog down slightly. Same as you can use light and rapid scritching around the head to excite a dog (don't do that). Using the command 'sit' when you are not in position to enforce or reinforce the behaviour is going to undo all your training at this stage. But if you have hold of one, you might have a chance there. There are so many variables that you might change to change the behaviour. Do the dogs react when they hear your car, or only when you get inside? Could temporary barricades be placed that prevent certain behaviour? Your dogs are in a habit and sometimes you have to look at the whole situation, alter things that trigger learned habits and try to start alternative habits. Unfortunately we just can't switch off a dog in a state of excitement, but we can lessen it, and we can also work with the excitement to obtain a more desirable behaviour.

I would imagine that the people that own the dogs are used to the smell and would not notice it. Not rudeness, it's just what you get when a handler has very poor hygiene standards. Same as those disgusting handlers that think it acceptable for the dog to urinate inside the building. Obviously they are accustomed to living with that smell in their homes and they don't realise that other people are not used to it at all. Some handlers are just filthy, dirty grots. But luckily the vast majority of show people have the cleanest, best groomed dogs you will ever see.

It would not be a good idea to drive from Ipswich to Tamworth at night. Especially at this time of year when flooding could happen on the New England. I agree with exercising her before the trip. I have gone that way with dogs in the car, we didn't see any fenced parks on the way so exercised the dogs on lead. If the dog is only used to travelling for two hours at a time, then stop every two hours for a five or ten minute stretch.

No, the photo quality is unimportant. iPhone is fine. But you need one person to stack the dog and one person to take the photo (or use a mirror). You do need somebody experienced to help you do this, because the dog needs to be placed in a precise position, and then tempted to stay in that position for a short while. It's not too tricky, but it is a learning thing for you and the dog and can take a few attempts to have success. We can only critique a photo or video if it is shot from exactly the right position and angle, and the dog is stacked correctly as well.

For breeders that like to match the pup's temperament to the new owners, or determine likelihood of adult conformation, 6 weeks may be too early to let the pups go. That won't happen in a pet shop at any age.

No, not friends and no PMs. Sorry the sarcasm didn't work. My analogy with children was particularly apt to show the naivety of your idea So let me de-construct what you are suggesting, to show you the objections again. It isn't surprising that forum members that live in different states that never talk to each other can see how objectionable the plan is, because we don't need to know each other to know how dogs behave. I don't know who you are, but you don't seem to understand how different breeds are likely to behave, with or without formal training. Most dog behaviour is guided by genetics. You cannot make a maltese dog act like a greyhound or a Boston terrier act like a German shepherd. You may not believe this, but those who have been around purebreed dogs a long time understand it well. It is the reason we have purebred dogs. They have different tendencies, levels of trainability, levels of activity and re-activeness which are not really altered by obedience training. You idea of one test for all dogs that will determine if they are good or not is a really bad idea. There is no consensus with dog owners of what is desirable behaviour and nor should there be. We all like different sorts of dogs. All we need is a list of things that are against the law and we can go from there, thanks. Your idea of what makes a good dog is likely to be different from those of other people, and we don't need the government to step in and decide what is 'good' in dogs and should be rewarded. We all just need to stay within the Dog Control Acts. A good dog is its own reward. Some of us in greyhounds have had a lot of experience with behaviour testing of dogs and we know it is a very imperfect science. While we use it as a tool to to determine rehomability of dogs, they are not as effective at determining what should happen with dogs that are privately owned. In fact many people would find it offensive to be told that their dog has a flaw in its personality that might mean it is less social than another dog. The same way that they would be offended if they were told their child had a social problem, just because the child failed a standardised ten minute test on a certain day. A person might decide to go to a qualified person to investigate or test to see if a child has a social problem, because to do so means that help can be made available. In your plan, there is no help. The resources go only to those that are deemed normal and social, and those that are not are rejected and discriminated against. That isn't an incentive for responsible dog ownership. What age should a dog be tested? Should puppies be automatically deemed naughty and out of control? This is your scheme Blackdogs, so you need to tell us what is a fair age for testing and whether there is anything that can happen if a 'good dog goes bad.' How are the good dogs physically identified in your concept? How often are they tested? Your first post said your idea was sketchy. You obviously don't have much experience in dealing with some of the problems people can run into with dogs. Take it from some people that have worked with dogs for many years that your plan is unworkable in many different ways. Even if we could magically devise a perfect test that would work for this, the costs of implementation of the test would be huge and not present any real value to the larger community. The costs of providing and operating separate facilities for the scheme would be so huge, and the benefit so small, that the idea is very ridiculous. So while I admire those that want to help come up with ways to improve responsible ownership, you seem unqualified to do so. A few years of working with different dogs and their owners, understanding dog behaviour better, training different breeds and working to solve problem behaviour, would give you a better idea of what things are likely to result in dog owners being more responsible, and how being a responsible owner doesn't automatically mean that a dog will be a 'good dog.' Nothing wrong with coming up with concepts, that is welcome from everyone here on DOL. But if an idea cannot work because it is totally based on a myth (responsible owner = social dog) then it should be tossed in the bin and new ideas thought of.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership. The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.' The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy. This is just a hypothetical, not parliamentary proposal, but whether or not they would go for it in polished form I'm not sure. Pets are taking more of a central role in people's lives these days and contribute greatly to the economy. Doggy day care centres were a crazy idea not so long ago. Of course whenever there are more stairs/cars/machines there are more accidents, so you put safety systems in place to minimise the chance of them happening. Stairs have rails, cars have speed limits, OH&S governs machinery use. You'd have much less chance of an incident taking place in a regulated situation than you would in a park. There are animal control laws, and if people followed them we could all enjoy taking our dogs everywhere. Many of us still think doggy day care is crazy, and much prefer traditional kennel set up with individual runs if we have to leave our dogs in professional care.

You think the government should buy land and facilities , and then only allow certain people to use them, based on a doggy personality test? I don't think you will convince any government that that is an effective use of money in promoting responsible animal ownership. The more dogs you mingle, the higher the chance that there will be incidents of 'irresponsibility.' The reward for being a responsible dog owner is already there. The dog is safe and happy.

It's hard to advise without seeing the door but you could do various things to try to solve this.You could teach the dog to sit and never again let her through the door unless she is sitting first. You could also think about a way of setting up a harmless 'booby trap' that would give the dog a fright if it tried to bite the door. This need not be something drastic. I have a bundle of light bamboo poles that I use to keep dogs away from things. I would arrange the poles so they were just balanced and If the dog touched the poles they would all come crashing down around him. That was enough of a deterrent for him not to go near the poles again. I used it to stop the dog digging up new plants. Another thing for you to try might be to paint some crib stop paste (from a horse shop) on the door.

The dual cab utes have a short tray and won't take the lengths that a station wagon can fit. They are good if you want extra height. Check this carefully. See what others are using to carry the same equipment. It may work out better to get a special lightweight trailer for your gear than to change your vehicle.

I have had two utes with canopies. I didn't have cages or anything special installed. That wouldn't be necessary with one dog, and would probably be a hassle. Essentials are the thick rubber floor mat, roof ventilation, and security grills on the side windows.

Maybe we could have a good citizen program for children. To reward good parents. Good kid means good parent, right? Bad kid, irresponsible parent? Only certified Good Little Children allowed in certain shopping centres, playgrounds and parks. Naughty children not welcome. Yes, that would go down so well.

Why? if the council did their jobs and cracked down on the loose dogs it shouldn't matter if your dog was a DINO. If people followed the leash laws there is technically no need for a recall. There is no reason a DINO dog can't be out and about and be just a good a dog as one that is happy for every dog to get in it's face. Why should a DINO dog not be allowed to sit quietly at a cafe? Um. What does DINO stand for? Sorry, never heard that term. This has nothing to do with lose dogs. It's about creating off leash areas were dogs can safetly mingle knowing others are under control and of good temperament. Trust me, I am aginst introducing further restrictions on pet ownership. I was thinking more in terms of a rewards club, not new laws to govern old areas. How do you identify the dogs? Do they carry a Good Dog Reward Club membership card? Do we employ extra council staff to monitor which dogs are collecting their rewards and to stop evil owners with terribly bad dogs trying to sneak in to use the (publicly funded) facilities? Why not start your own Good Dog Club? Have your own criteria about who you let in, and hold it on private property, so nobody else is subsidising it.

Don't over -think it. Just feed your dogs their bones separately. Bones are a high value resource, often much higher value than normal food. So it is quite normal for the young dog to want to take the older one's bone. He thought he could get away with it, and he would have if you were not there. Next time, Loki might decide not to give up the bone without a fight.

Ignoring the dog? I come home and jump out of the car and go "Doggies!! Hello Doggies!! Doggies!! Run Doggies Run!!" I suggest the OP doesn't do this.

You don't need to do any rigorous training to show dogs, nor do you need to be consistent in attending them. Many full time workers and shift workers show dogs. I imagine it would be harder for people like Real Estate Agents that need to work every single weekend, but I can't see how it would impact on Nursing, unless you chose to work every weekend.

No matter how many dogs you breed or what dogs you breed with, it will not help decrease the amount of irresponsible breeding in our community. There is no logic in that statement. You don't NEED to show your dog, but it is the way you are going to get a first, second, third, fourth opinion, from those that are in the know. That is the (only) purpose of dog shows. Why not show?