mita

I don't know about the face-to-face consultations. The phone contact was sufficient to answer my questions about crate training. Followed up by their emailing me excellent guidelines about rationale and training games & activities. Didn't cost anything.

Bump for tomorrow

I know you've said you'll be reducing to only one dog. But we know of a builder & his wife who've combined an alert dog with a guard dog, at their home property, where there's construction equipment. His wife's dog is a small tibetan spaniel that has excellent hearing for anything unusual. This little dog will bark only if somebody is coming thro' the gate or is on the property. So it doesn't do mindless yapping. The husband's dog is a doberman who responds to the tib's alert bark by taking himself out for a look. Simply the sight of this dobe makes an intruder think twice. What is not known is that the dobe hasn't a vicious bone in his body and is a much loved house pet....just as the tibbie is. Both dogs are well-socialised & came from registered breeders. And are also great mates.

What a beautiful boy. And what great service he gave to protecting the community. I love how his handler said Cisco could start his working day, visiting with children at a day care centre....& in the afternoon he'd be tracking an armed offender.

I've heard good things about Jane Harper, too. There's also helpful & experienced dog behaviourists at the RSPCA Q'ld animal behaviour unit (one even has specialist knowledge about cat behaviour). They have a Behaviour Helpline which can be a starting point before face-to-face work, or may, in some cases, prove sufficient in itself. I used that service some weeks back & found it excellent. Phone no (07) 3426 9928

I take your point Having once found a gorgeous huge Rottie out wandering, my concern for him was that the 'terror' buttons would be pushed. But my reading of the story is that something is going to have to be done about the Goldie's wandering. Certainly, as cute as Sam the Boxer's 'free shopping' sprees were, it was agreed they'd have to come to an end.

Is there a corner store the Goldie calls at? Sam, the boxer, who used to live next to my mother's home, was an escape artist when his owners' were at work. He'd swing by a corner store & take a packet of potato chips from the stand that was just inside the door. He only needed to poke his head around the corner. But Sam's biggest caper was when the big truck arrived to deliver meat to the butcher shop. A ramp would be put down at the back of the truck as the delivery man hauled the meat into the store. Sam nipped up the ramp....& took his pick. People in the area knew Sam well & were very good to him. As soon as he was discovered to be out, someone would take him back home. After a while, all his escape routes were located....so no more free shopping for Sam.

And from me, too.

Monah, my tibbie Annie travelled from Sweden as a youngster. She was imported by an Australian breeder. Good idea to talk with breeders who've done this as they may have some useful tips to help the dog cope.

The borough of Princeton, USA, publishes a Dog Safety brochure which they acknowledge they sourced from Calgary in Canada (where the ban on pitbulls was revoked in favour of other measures & bites/attacks were reduced). This brochure points out....any dog can bite. The info in this brochure is packed full of well-sourced advice. Laws that pick up on these issues.....and public education....are the way to go. That Princeton council has used photos of rescue dogs who may still be available for adoption....for their brochure. Take a look at the big tough-looking guy....obviously screened for temperament and behaviour. In Victoria, he'd be sending the checklist authorities after the angle of his ears & the shape of his snout. When he's no more likely to be aggressive than the other dogs in the brochure. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CvbguP_PhgcJ:www.princetonhealthoffice.org/Files/154.pdf+What+did+Calgary+do+to+prevent+dog+bites+and+attacks&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMVgnr2FJuke1xyHBr8OG60BJ1X-ip-kk6awaQddKbhnKo0hLspXNstaBt4CBCW1Ua3FxfHncFm0QainhJwGjw4zgJS26BOE96vLwVJJrsdpy-xgu9v0ySOVh6P0bUbMef_T5E&sig=AHIEtbQQLcoZGRblxAU-tkUwSxaJdr_qQA

There are evidence-based approaches, where improvements have been measured in terms of pubic safety. And breed labelling had nothing to do with it. The simple answer is: Follow the science and learn from the places where fndings have been applied with positive results.

The researchers from the University of Cordoba (& elsehere) would say that their work would predict that possibility. Especially given that Calgary changed their approach from pursuing breeds to lessen attacks from aggressive dogs.....towards other measures of how humans managed dogs.

What about about the genetic factor and the difficulty managing a dog predisposed with aggression.......drop the leash with a dog like that and it will cause harm to a person or another dog/animal. I have never heard so much absolute nonesense that bad owners are the cause of aggression in all dogs.........ask some behaviourists how many human/animal aggressive dogs they work with that has nothing to do with the owners or how the dog was raised, generally the problem is that the owners don't know how to manage an aggressive dog, but give the same owners a genetically stable dog of good temperament, they would have no problems managing a dog like that. Do some quoting of evidence about the relationship of genetics with developed behaviour. You obviously believe in genetic determinism when it comes to predictions of behaviour. I've quoted evidence from the University of Cordoba who mounted one of the most extensive and comprehensive studies into the genesis of aggression in dogs, of all kinds and mixes. I've also quoted the position of the American Veterinary Association which is based on studies of that kind. Frankly, your position is solely based on opinion, I'll leave you to it.

So you believe in keeping the general public ignorant about the evidence which points to how human life can be protected from seriously aggressive dogs? And thereby reinforcing stereotypes that come from lack of knowledge gained from science? While more beneficial ways to ensure dog safety are not followed up on? What you're preaching is endangerment based on omission. That is, failing to address the factors where danger comes from. Which is why you cite not one scrap of evidence for your opinion Your position is part of the problem.

If you read the information from Ohio.....& why that US state repealed their laws which presumed that pitbulls were invariably vicious....you'd have seen the move was backed by the American Veterinary Association. That call was made based on the knowledge gained from scientific studies. Where the evidence is that breed per se is not the determining factor if a dog develops as dangerously unsafe. One study at the University of Cordoba, Spain, studied a huge cohort of dogs, both purebred and mixed. It included Rotties and Pitbulls. Based on breed label alone, such dogs were no more predictably aggressive, by nature, than any other. What linked with aggressive behaviour was what's called owner-dependant factors What humans do in raising and managing dogs, whatever the breed or mix. So, in the interests of public safety, what needs to be 'gone after' is the behaviour of humans which produces dangerous dogs. Not breed labels. Repeat.....a breed label, the same as physical feature... does not invariably predict behaviour. There are studies which have looked at the human factors involved in those who own dogs whose aggressive behaviour has caused harm. That's the place to look for information which would help frame dog safety laws. This Victorian law belongs in the dark ages of ignorance. And by putting resources in the wrong direction, it is failing to protect the community from the humans who 'produce' unsafe dogs.....whatever breed label they have, or whatever they look like. While also killing dogs for nothing. From the poor dogs' point of view, a quote from Henry Fielding: 'It's bad enough to die for something, but to die for nothing is the very Devil.'

Yes. Very good advice whatever the breed someone is considering.

I don't think some people in this thread are interested in logic, Mita. You are not wrong, Sheridan. Maybe it's something in the water. :)

From the press article about Ohio rolling back their ban on Pitbulls (& note that veterinary medicine has a base in science): ... Organized veterinary medicine and animal advocates contend that certain breeds are not more likely than others to bite, and attacks by pit bulls are rare. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) considers pit bull bans to be an ineffective approach to public safety. What’s more, pit bull isn’t a breed, per se, but a subjective designation that can apply to the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and, in some cases, American bulldogs. "How can you enforce a law when you can't even define what a pit bull is?" asked Dr. John Daugherty, owner of Poland Veterinary Centre in Poland, Ohio. "Ohio's regulation was ineffective and stupid in the first place. For the most part, the pit bulls that come in my practice are very nice. The German shepherds I see are much more aggressive."

I am waiting for someone in this discussion to point to evidence that the appearance of an individual dog predicts its social behaviour. Any takers? While you're on it, you might like to consider if an individual human's appearance predicts his/her behaviour.

One US state, Ohio, has had a law for many years, stating that the Pitbull is automatically vicious. In February, this year, Ohio legislators wiped out that law, because the evidence doesn't support one breed of dog.....or, even worse, one 'look' of dog....as carrying an automatic prediction of anti-social behaviour. Note....it's based on evidence, not on opinion or stereotype. Their state's Veterinary Association concurred. Now, acting on evidence, they are legislating in the direction of what makes a dog a 'nuisance' or a menace. Which are 'dangerous' breeding, raising, managing, lack of containment.....by humans. Dangerous dogs are produced by humans who endanger... http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=21529 Meanwhile, some authorities still hide that fact behind attaching a breed label, to the point of silliness. I once saw a pic of 2 harmless family dogs that'd been taken over the border to NSW, when the 'Pittie-type' witch hunt based on appearance alone, was rife in Q'ld. Both had been assessed as 'Pittie-type' and they couldn't have looked more different from each other. One resembled a shorter-legged Ridgie, the other a longer legged Staffy. Neither had any history of aggression, but were well socialiased people-friendly dogs (which has to be left out of a 'looks only' law.)

You're right that this law harks back to the pre-scientific times when benign physical features were taken to 'tell' about behaviour. Many a woman was accused of being a witch based on a feature such as a mole or birth-mark. I can't understand how Victoria has gone down an ancient track about 'predicting' behaviour from physical features alone. A great deal of the rest of the world has thrown out such ideas as the evidence has mounted against it. Reliable organisations such as the American Veterinary Association says that it's going down the wrong road of dog management. Even Q'ld , which has such laws, has seen huge cracks in the underlying beliefs. Few years back, the CEO of RSPCA Qld publicly said the law had just resulted in harmless family dogs being euthed. Now their line is 'Deed, not breed.' The key sentence in the OP information about these two poor dogs was that they hadn't done any harm. From that can be surmised....'and likely never would have, if they'd been allowed to live.' Best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I agree that this awful situation should be protested by every Australian....because the principle goes beyond dogs. It's a case of a belief that belongs to pre-scientific times being permitted a place in law. That's neither sound nor ethical in the modern world.

Bump

What others have said, about setting up a place outside where she learns to be happy even when you're home. Make it a spot where all the best things happen for her.....like a day dog bed. Give her meals, treats and cuddles there. So it becomes a good place to be. Find toys she likes & put them there, too. Rub the palms of your hands all over the toys so you transfer your scent on to them. Also put an old unwashed T shirt there. The owner's scent comforts a dog.....it's a bit like the owner being there. Practise getting her used to spending time out on this dog bed.....even while you're at home. When you go out....a new treat or bone added to her day bed should encourage her that another 'good' thing's happening there. Then, when she's in this spot, totally ignore her for 10 minutes before you go. No eye contact, no talking with her. When you come home, do the same, totally ignore her for 10 minutes before you pat her. This takes all the emotional drama out of coming and going. Also follow up on the training. Getting your girl to always 'Sit' for all the things she likes....the toys, treats, meals, lead on for a walk etc will help her learn who's in charge. And get her specially to obey 'Sit' on her day mat as she gets the nice things there. We had a sheltie girl with separation anxiety (she'd rip the soft furnishings to pieces when we were out). The above advice was given us by a dog behaviorist at UQ vet clinic. We were told to follow it precisely and consistently. It worked! No more ripping of furniture.

Having lived next door, for years, to well-cared for and beautifully raised greyhounds, I'm a fan of these dogs. They tick every box.....they don't make any problems at all. Lovely calm dogs. Their hobbies are watching TV, having a snooze & getting patted. :) These greys walk perfectly on a lead as their owner takes them walking every day. So affectionate, too. The puppies go out to other racing lives after 4 months of age. It may be 2 or 3 years before they come back....and they remember all their friends here. They run to the fence, tails wagging, knowing they'll get lots of pats. One of the girls who's still only a few years of age.....& has won many races....is getting rehomed as a pet. Why? Her owner says she adores children. At the race track, parents will ask if their children can pat her....& this girl is in heaven when that happens. He says he knows she'd rather stay with the children than do anything else in the world. :)

PA, the very last thing you are is 'selfish'. 'Selfish' people look after their own comfort & pleasure. There's no comfort or pleasure to be had in the suffering that goes along with an eating disorder. And the evidence is that those with anorexia are anything but stupid. Anorexia is no passing 'fad' of someone pretending to be ill. Anorexia is as much an illness as for anyone trying to deal with other chronically serious conditions. We don't tell folk with chronic asthma to just 'get over it' and 'breathe properly'. But as you've found out there are programs that help people manage anorexia, just as there are to help people manage their asthma. Thank goodness you've got some good friends....who don't turn away because they're ignorant of the illness and can only be judgmental. Your good friends love the person who is you....who's had to continually face up to a vicious illness that you didn't ask for....and didn't bring on yourself. Your two little doggies are jolly lucky to have a 'mum' like you. In the middle of your hardest & darkest times, you still have their welfare top of your concerns. Now, .an ED program, your good friends, and support from all who understand...will help you fight for your own welfare. Warmest best wishes.....from someone who's very close to a case of anorexia.