Greytmate

Nothing wrong with muzzling a dog in a dog park. Woody's muzzle stays on at the park. You have no idea why the dogs were muzzled, or under what circumstances they might bite. Perhaps they were muzzled routinely. There is no reason why you wouldn't treat them exactly the same as any other dog in a dog park. But it is the ones without the muzzles that can do more harm.

It wasn't a problem mentioning that the dog was cross bred. The only disappointing thing was this forum being asked only for the opinions of people with dogs of the same 'breeding'. Cross bred dogs may be nothing like their own siblings let alone like any dog from a different cross breeding. All of the behaviour mentioned was common in most popular breeds of dog.

Loungefly there was nothing wrong with your post, except instead of instead of mentioning breed names, just call her a dog. She's doing dog things more so than breed things. Sounds like she is a very devoted, friendly and intelligent dog. It never hurts to do what I call 'separation training' on such a clingy dog. What Persephone said, starting with teaching the dog to lie quietly in another room, and not always be right with you. That way if the dog ever has to be left alone at a vet or kennel, they are just that bit better able to cope.

What ever you call what that dog did, it is really horrific. A very serious and sustained attack. The arm injuries show that the girl may have tried to protect her face. A strong adult who is motivated could very easily drag a 40 kg dog off their child, and it was very lucky that the lady was able to get there quickly and do that.

OFFTOPIC: Why aren't they 'allowed to keep greyhounds' crated? Sorry, it is probably more accurate to say that greyhound trainers's kennels will not be approved unless they meet minimum size and construction requirements. The dogs themselves can be crated, and will usually spend time in dog trailers or in a crate-type arrangement at a race track. I have heard some trainers comment negatively on anyone crating dogs, and one of the reasons they might rehome a dog is because they don't want the dog to have to be kept in an enclosure any more. I have no idea of why this person specifically doesn't like crating, or even of who they are. I just took a guess based on what the OP has said before. Just wanted to put out the idea that some racing people are against keeping greyhounds in smaller enclosures than they normally see them in, and they have the dog's welfare in mind when they form that belief. They may not understand the benefit of appropriate crating, and possibly may not be open to learning about it from a pet person. I just don't want anyone to get upset or confused or to change their mind, so best just to not talk crating with some people.

That is exactly right Nek.

I don't care what Leerburg does. Aggression is dangerous, and if somebody wrongly uses an aversive on a dog that is aggressive due to anxiety, the problem can be made much worse. General advice is usually given on things people can try to encourage good behaviour and attitude from their dog. But nobody should ever be encouraged to think they never need go beyond reading stuff online to solve their dog's aggression problems. Handler problems are more common than dog problems, and you often need to see how a person handles to know the best way to communicate the right solution to them. This topic has been brought up a few times here over the years. Those with reputations to protect do not attempt to solve dangerous behavioural problems here on the forums.

Good advice, if people are set against crate training a few photos won't change their view, it will just entrench any view they might have that you are a potentially unsuitable jailer. Or as somebody that dares to question their knowledge.

We put the bamboo up as a visual screen. If you want to attach something solid, like panels of colourbond, you would need to make sure the whole fence was sound enough to carry that weight. Another idea is to just buy more palings, and nail one over each gap from the solid side of the fence. You moved to cane toad territory? That is also cyclone territory and that is the reason why fences in QLD are often built with gaps rather than being solid panels like you would have in the southern states. Consider that and also the effects of local flash flooding before making the fence solid.

If this is the person I am thinking of - Don't push it. My advice is if you are set on that dog, just agree to keep the dog however they tell you to keep it. Greyhounds are used to being kept in enclosures during their racing life. Racing people are not allowed to keep the dogs routinely crated instead, and some may not allow a dog to go to a home where they think it might happen. If you want to crate train a greyhound, it is usually very easy to do.

Yes, I agree. I've done genetics honours, and one year just isn't as long as it sounds - there's really not enough time in one year to really get into the research and follow it up like you can while doing a pHD or even a masters. I'd say the best thing is to work out what question you want answered, and then go talk shop with some university academics in the relevant field to find out what approach they'd take and what parts they think are do-able within the constraints of a pHD or masters. They will be keen to talk. Universities are always looking for business like this.

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem. It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum. That's just a cop out half the time as aggression is not always a poor or unpredictable behaviour or a problem with the dog's temperament or character at all. Aggression is often only a behaviour deemed a serious issue on the basis of socitey protocol. People often buy a GSD or working breed for their protective instinct and good examples of these breeds should have the genetics for territorial aggression in the back yard and most like to think if someone came over the back fence the dog will defend it's property and a good dog will. Take the same dog out in the street, he/she doesn't know where the fence line ends, sees the bloke across the road and fires up on the end of the leash, then automatically the dog has an aggression issue and needs a behaviourist which is nonesense. The dog needs to learn when to aggress and when not to which can be easily achieved by competent training. With breed experience and providing the owner can describe particular behaviours and reactions, you can easily provide a training guide or something to try and from a danger perspective, you can always use a muzzle in the process to keep everything safe. This standard answer to get a behaviourist does more harm than good half the time. There would be more experienced people here if dog owners did regularly discuss their problems openly who would have better practical solutions than half the behaviourists all put together IMHO. I have seen so many behaviourists assess the same dog and all have a different answer and approach anyway How in earth is that a cop out. Someone coming to a public forum to ask for help on aggression does not have the skill to deal with it themselves and nor do the majority of people on a forum. An experienced Behaviourist should be sought to help them. Whether or not aggression in canines is 'normal' is irrelevant because we have dogs live in domestication and aggression within the family is not accepted. However, you're more than welcome to say "Canine Aggression is normal" when a dog bites a child or nearly kills a dog it lives with. You can also be the liable one when your huge amount of breed experience stops someone from contacting a professional and the dog goes on to do more damage. The point is Sas, there is no formal behaviourist profession, so what are we are really telling people to do, is seek a person who's titled themselves as a behaviourist and the problem is solved. If they happen to take that advice and get an idiot as a behaviourist and the dog does bite someone, that makes it ok then??? 55Chevy, I don't believe that it is appropriate to diagnose and treat aggression problem over the internet. It isn't appropriate for me, because I do not want to take responsibility for giving advice that I cannot ensure has been understood or applied properly. So yes, in that respect it is a cop out. I don't know it is possible to safely diagnose and treat aggression with a theoretical dog that has been described on the Internet. Dog behaviourists look at dog behaviour, not just listen to owner problems. And then there will be other people reading that may decide to try the advice on their own dog, with disastrous results. If people have an aggressive dog that they are unable to control, and they are unwilling or unable to get professional help, I would advise they euthanise the dog. I realise that not all trainers and behaviourist are qualified, but they all still have take on responsibility for what they do and say. I would be happy to find a good behaviourist for anyone in Australia that needed one. But usually there are good recommendations given here, so I don't need to.

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem. It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum.

Here is one place to start a search. Google Scholar

I get 'feedback' from the obedience club where I take Woody. I shut my mouth and take it, because they volunteered to instruct the class, and I did not. The quality of some of the instruction and feedback is so dismal in my opinion, I actually feel sorry for people who might be taking their advice seriously. I'm just there to get him desensitised to movement of small dogs. And that is going well. Have had no feedback on that. I have had to give feedback many times, as I was an obedience instructor for 15 years and then I rehabilitated and rehomed greyhounds for five years. I think it is important that people know exactly what is expected of them, before you can expect them to listen to criticism. When people want feedback, it can be useful to ask them how they think they are going with whatever, before giving them the feedback. That can guide you on how constructive the feedback might need to be, or may even avoid the need to give any at all.

I would not argue with any of that Steve. I don't think it is stupid at all. I actually said that the MDBA does and can do a lot for dogs. I fully support the MDBA's ideals. I was talking about what the name might suggest, and how some people I know have reacted to it. I know you will not change the name, and it would be easier for me if I just shut up and left you alone about it. But you asked "Why wouldnt it be a good thing for someone to be given a pat on the back for something they have done which contributed to doing good things for our dogs?" The answer is not because there is anything wrong with the MDBA or the idea of acknowledging excellence. I think the MDBA is excellent in what it is trying to do, and especially you Steve. My post was about how winning such an award might be perceived. Which is where politics sometimes can come into it for various reasons. Personally I was honoured to receive a nomination, and have nominated others too.

People often don't consult a behaviourist until the behaviour is really ingrained. If it can be changed it will take a massive amount of time an effort. By the time they have come to you, the behaviour will have most likely already caused conflict within the family. You can have the person that contacts you quite willing to do whatever you suggest - with a partner at home who has been pushed to the point where they are unwilling to make a single concession for the dog, and may even act counter-productively out of resentment. :rolleyes:

LOL. I don't think you would be any less frustrated in this industry. People usually have problem dogs because they were either born with problems or have owner created problems. The owner has a huge emotional investment that often prevents them seeing things rationally. Getting them to change the way that they manage the dog is sometimes not much different from getting somebody to change the way that they parent their child. You may also have to deal with the ego and the problem at the same time. Or maybe it is the problem. There is such a limit to how much behaviourists can do in real life situations. But don't let me put you off.

I have no idea of whether this is what Corvus means, but a couple of people have expressed concerns to me about this too. Winning an award with a title like might be seen as doing a good thing for Master Breeders, but not necessarily for dogs. The name MDBA doesn't really indicate a focus on the dogs, but on the people that breed them. There is still a chasm between what the MDBA does and can do for the benefit of dogs, and what the name alone might suggest that its priorities are.

I thought that as long as you had done animal behaviour for your postgraduate degree (any animal), you get the qualification? While this may mean they know nothing about dogs, it means that they can call themselves behaviourists. Veterinary Behaviourists have two separate qualifications. Again, may have had very little experience with dogs. But dogs are the only animal most people would ever call a behaviourist for. That sounds sensible, but you are right about how people think. From the point of somebody calling a behaviourist, they would probably want you to say you can change the behaviour now, and not for you to do things that may or may not work and need to be monitored to see if they work. Those that make a living from dog behaviour mostly do so because they know how to work with people and sell their services.

Yes, I would have done the same.

Your comment is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about putting dogs down. That isn't what this law is about at all. If you keep your dog where people can taunt it and intimidate it, I feel very sorry for it. That doesn't sound like a good environment for a dog.

We were quoted around $100K - $150K from UQ for a masters thesis that would be able to 'prove' what we already thought. They went through the whole thing with us. Luckily for us there was already some research we found from America that came close enough for us to use.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law. Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied? The dangerous dog law was too much. The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous. The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing. Greytmate, Would you say that a barking dog behind a good 6 foot colourbond fence would be considered appropriately secured to aviod a menacing dog order??? I would guess so if the fence is secure and people cannot inadvertently enter the dog's yard if they were wanting to knock on the front door. If the dog is throwing itself against the fence and damaging it, things might be different. I would expect the ACO to inspect properly. It is a bit pointless discussing hypothetical situations. If the barking is excessive it comes under a different law, that we already have in place. The enforcement process requires ACOs to make decisions on what a 'reasonable' person would think. It is unreasonable to fear most dogs. The fear might be very real, but if it is created by past experience and not by the actions of the dog being investigated, the council would be unlikely to act.

That is good news. The opinions I gave in this thread had nothing to do with your qualities as a dog owner. It was pointing out the risks of attempting to keep dogs in an environment containing feral cats. Because you have already had problems with this to such an extent that you had to give away two dogs, and seemed reluctant to make necessary changes to avoid a repeat. If the ferals are gone and you can supervise your dog's interactions with other animals, you have every chance of avoiding a situation where you might have to give away yet another dog. It was when you put the welfare of feral cats above the welfare of your own dogs that people expressed concerns about the problem you had being repeated. Big opinions, but ones that have come from years of experience and knowledge about dog behaviour. That is what you get when you ask a question on DOL. Glad to see you are being realistic about the feral cats, and once that is sorted I hope you enjoy your new dog.