Longcoat

I am not convinced that a dog exists who can't be taught with suitable training methods not to pull on the leash. Too many people IMHO are too fast in blaming the dog for behaviours which are not the dog's fault, but the fault of the handler.

Halti's do have their ligitimate uses for people preferring a suppression device instead of training their dog I agree. Given that using a halti for "many years" confirms that it doesn't teach the dog how to walk nicely as a training tool otherwise, you would use a halti for a couple weeks to train the dog then discard it as you do with a choker, prong collar or any other worthwhile training device. A well trained dog doesn't need a collar and leash at all as an end result

Nothing would surprise me with Halti mentality

This is not quite correct about dogs attacking in defence of people or property where most legislation permits it providing the dog is on your premises and is not deployed to attack off leash in a public place. Attack "trained" dogs are more reliable against indiscriminant attacks than an untrained dog and have the obediance reliability to abort an attack and out on command where an untrained dog acting on impulse doesn't.

This is an interesting topic I would never suggest people's account of their dogs stepping up when required isn't true, but considering the OP's working line GSD which are at the top end of protection breeds running away at the crunch, I personally wouldn't trust non protective breeds to be relaible at all. Most non protective breeds don't have the genetic nerve to be trained in protection let alone perform successfully from instinct. Most untrained dogs that I have seen tested under pressure that will step up and fight are dominant and aggressive by nature and are not easily handled by the average pet owner given their poor behavior in public with a desire to chase and attack anyone and anything that doesn't belong in their family pack. Most of these types of dogs, the owners know they will step up as the foundation of training has been to prevent the dog from reacting which takes a lot of work to achieve sociability. There is a huge difference between a dog acting defensively as a deterrent than a dog that will step up and fight for your life, even in the protective breeds, it's not easy to find a dog with the right nerve strength to be trained successfully for protection work anyway. Any commonly known protective breed, GSD, Rotty, Doberman, breeds of that type that will bark on command and bounce around on the end of the leash is really the best it gets for a physical deterrent untrained IMO.

I tend to agree with this My dog used to do the same I think because we had overly trained him to sit and then drop where he learned that often a drop would follow a sit command. How we corrected that problem was commanding a drop first then a sit from the drop position which seemed to provide clarity in his mind what the two commands really meant. Since working the two commands backwards, he hasn't broken from either since

Show wins too easily can provide a misrepresentation of a dog's compliance with the breed standards when used as a marketing tool to confirm breed quality. In order for a show entry to be accepted, verification that other important aspects of the breed standard have been met should be required IMHO. Working dogs for example that haven't achieved any working titles which makes up part of the breeds compliance should score lower that dogs that have. A car with the best paint job at a car show, is hardly the best car if it has no engine and can't be driven.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else. You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.[/b] There is more to a dog's compliance with the breed standards than physical traits which I believe needs to be taken into account by the judges. A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

And the point of such a question Jed in relation to this thread topic???

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else.

They will pick up a drunk from the pub with "i'm gonna be sick" tatoo'd on their forehead, which they do all over the back seat, but they refuse a dog as it may drop some hair A bit of dog hair on the seat is far easier than cleaning up a good chuck.............doesn't make sense, especially a guide dog which is someones eyes

``The owner had continually failed to meet the legal requirements with regard to housing the dog despite numerous requests by the council.'' He probably should have mounted an argument regarding the dog's breed when council first raised the issue. If an issue like this surfaces, you can't rely on the hope that it will go away unfortunately.

How ridiculous So you purchase the dog, the permit is refused and then you have to get rid of the dog. Stupid It would make much more sense to have to get the permit first before getting the extra dog How stupid is a system like this..........get the 3rd dog first then apply for a permit with a possibility of refusal then having to get rid of one dog Once you have drawn attention to yourself by applying for the permit, you are backed into a corner with 3 dogs faced with a major problem. Personally, I would take a punt keeping one dog unregistered or better still, register the 3rd dog at another address and deal with the situation when or if a council enquiry occurred.

Sounds like something else is in there anyway - last I checked Labs didn't come in multicolour. People have NO idea about Labs/Golden Retrievers, which is just scary as I thought they would be two breeds people would be familiar with. I don't even react now beyond quietly correcting them when people tell me I have a Lab, or people tell me I have a Lab x GR - I used to explain the difference, but then I had people say "right so yours is a long haired golden retriever" Sigh. They no less about Flatcoated Retrievers too We had a black Flatty girl years ago, to most people was a long haired Labrador We still have a long haired Labrador but this one is gold

The APBT breeder owned the Amstaff bitch in the situation I heard of Jed.

Attacks on what club???, I live in SA and can't guess what club we are talking about, no club has been named here. The incidents spoken about may not have happened at your club Tazmadman and perhaps it's another club that the OP is referring to???

Load of crap! That is "Longcoats" talk. He/she seems to think getting ANKC papers is like buying a packet of cornflakes. Besides, if people were to try and falsify ANKC papers, one rangers phonecall to the state body would soon fix that up. What happens I believe Rottiadora, is breeding a litter of APBT's and registering them against Amstaff parentage. The ANKC wouldn't know if the Amstaff dam on the paperwork has had a litter or not, or who sired the litter. The ranger can phone the state body all they like and the paperwork applies to the dog in question ligitimately and there is no argument

If you no longer live in NSW, throw it in the bin There is NOTHING that can be enforced from NSW to another state if that's the case.

That's nonesense I think Kelpie-i, they couldn't possibly be number 2 But, the Kelpie name is regulary thrown into the cross breed mix if they are taking that into account. I have seen plenty of supposed Kelpie X's that look nothing like a Kelpie

I was just thinking that too????

Some say it helps dramatically when the ranger is demanding that you must verify the breed of your dog

'Jed' date='15th Mar 2010 - 10:38 PM' post='4396274'] Banning schutzhund in Aust may seem like a very nearsighted decision to devotees, but in fact, it does help keep the breeds traditionally involved from charges of "dangerous, savage". Jed, I responded to what you wrote above???. How does banning Schutzhund help keep the breeds traditionally involved from charges of "dangerous, savage"

I was thinking more about a couple of BYB's I knew that would continue to breed irratically on the basis that if they couldn't find homes for all the puppies, some organisation would take them off their hands to try and find them homes. In other words, they didn't care much if their bitch became pregnant, but having said that, if no organisations would take their excess puppies they couldn't home, their bitches would have been desexed.

My GSD could have 100 acres of free access to the most exciting terrain and physical pleasures that a dog could ever wish for, but by his own choice, he would be laying at someones feet or following one of us around the house all day and be comfortable living in a one bedroom flat. He would enjoy to run the 100 acres, providing one of us was out there with him.

We are saving the lives of puppies and dogs in rescue, but in that process, are we encouraging the BYB's, pet shops and puppy farmers to breed and distribute more???. Personally I would like to see these breedings shut down completely, but it's a hard line to call and the consequence is that lives will be lost. It's a major problem that doesn't have a conclusive answer and is a very difficult situation to contend with in the best interests of homeless dogs.