Aidan3

Whoever gave you the idea that all opinions were valid? Some opinions are indefensible, others are dangerous, others are pointless or benign. Not everyone knows what can and cannot be determined by DNA testing and you were not 'rousted'. You attempted to straw-man my argument to which I responded appropriately. Try not to take it personally. Individuality is to be applauded but not for it's own sake.

DNA can't determine breed or breeds of individual dogs. A DNA test can conclusively confirm parentage. So if neither parent is of a restricted breed, it must follow that neither are any of the pups. Does that make sense? So logically, if you have documentation to confirm that neither parent is of a restricted breed, then a DNA test to confirm that this sire and this dam are the parents of your pup should put you in the clear. But under Vic legislation, you are not. Your dog can be killed because it looks like a restricted breed even though you can prove who its parents are, and both parents have documentation stating that they are not of a restricted breed. This is precisely the problem... Supervised sample collection is not acceptable. A stat dec is not acceptable. What is acceptable? It doesn't matter how 'fair dinkum' you are. I am not being hyperbolic when I compare this to the witch hunts, all analogies break down eventually but I'm yet to find that point here. The assumption of innocence is gone, replaced with an assumption of guilt. It is a deeply flawed process that we should not accept in any part of law. These are fundamental tenets of law being thrown into the blender of hysteria for a hypothesis which no evidence supports (BSL). Think about that for a moment. Think about the consequences beyond animal welfare and our right to own dogs who have not caused harm and are no more likely to than any other breed of dog.

D.N.A alone can't accurately decipher specific breeds. Breeds aren't a cipher. DNA can conclusively determine parentage; if we want to know that two dogs are the parents of another dog, we can determine this without question. If we can then determine that both of those dogs are not restricted breeds, we must necessarily conclude that the dog in question is also not of a restricted breed. The legislation in Victoria will not necessarily arrive at this logical conclusion.

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. This is a fundamental assumption of reasoned discourse in law, philosophy, and science. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendent can be compared, without hyperbole, to a medieval 'witch hunt'; where the defendent is required to prove that they cannot perform witchcraft. Against the standard imposed by Victorian legislation, this would be very difficult and many dogs who are not pitbulls will be found to be pitbulls and crosses despite evidence to the contrary (e.g DNA proof of parentage showing dog is cross between a particular labrador and a particular boxer). If we accept this sort of legislation and the coroners recommendations, we accept laws which are not legally, philosophically, or scientifically sound.

That's the reality. Some people just won't follow through with behaviour modification no matter what the benefits are. At least drugs provide relief and are safe to use for most dogs.

I said: - "a simple and obvious solution to this is obedience training" - the 'stay'(which I used as an example) is merely one part of an overall structured program that treats the whole dog rather than treating a specific behavior. I agree that training can bring about generalised changes, I'm just not sure what qualifies structured obedience training as a treatment of the "whole dog rather than a specific behaviour" that wouldn't also qualify the behaviour modification used in the paper I cited. If I was going to buy into the vague notion of "treating the whole dog" I'd say it was the other way around. But these are just opinions. It's not objective. People who suffer with dogs who suffer from separation anxiety need objective solutions.

The experiment couldn't be simpler: one group treated with drugs and 'behavioral modification' designed by behaviorists (as per the paper you cited), the other with a structured 10 week obedience program, run by an experienced trainer. OK, so we have one group sent off to do their own thing with a hand-out and some pills, and another group that takes the dog with them and does some training every day with regular instruction from a competent instructor. Already we have an issue with the dog spending more time with the owner (hence less separation to be anxious about). Now what sort of things are we going to train the dog to do? You've mentioned 'stays'. So the dog is trained to stay, quietly, for progressively longer periods. OK, so the owner reports "dog whines less and follows me around less" on the self-report card. Less whining, less following around (statistically significant perhaps), but still the same amount of destructive behaviour (or maybe not, the owner is starting to think about the problem constructively now and is putting whatever stuff is left to be damaged away, funny how that works) - but how do we know the dog is actually feeling any better? And where is our "10 week structured obedience + drugs" group to account for the variance attributable to the obedience program which we're hypothesising will be more effective than the behaviour modification program? Is it better, or are drugs impeding performance in our sample? We haven't got a control group, so we really should address this at a minimum. Is obedience training better, but obedience training + drugs better again? Not quite so simple, is it? But before we do this we should probably wander down to the local obedience clubs and drop off a few questionnaires relating to separation related problem behaviours in a cohort that has already undertaken at least 10 weeks of structured obedience training. Or maybe, to qualify that it was "competent" instruction, we could survey owners of dogs with obedience titles? That might save us a lot of time right off the bat, we really only need to find a few dogs who still display separation related behaviours to suggest that maybe obedience training alone isn't enough?

'Stay' is a specific behaviour. If you think SA can be treated by teaching a dog to stay, go ahead and design a reasonable experiment around your idea. You might get published and solve a very serious problem for a lot of dogs and their owners. I might point out that one of my earlier articles on separation anxiety suggested an out of sight stay as a treatment for mild (non-clinical) separation anxiety, so it would only be fair to cite me in your work :laugh: Clomicalm has been criticised on the basis of it's mild sedative properties. Admittedly it's an older style of drug and it would be fair to question how much 'symptom masking' we see due to the effect of sedation. If clomipramine didn't have the same neurochemical effects on dogs with separation anxiety as it does in every other species we have put under the microscope (figuratively and literally) I would be amazed. We do know (through experimental research paradigms where all variables except treatment are held constant) that inhibited serotonin pathways will cause anxiety. You can try a serotonin depletion procedure yourself if you want to experience the effects, the materials are readily available (legally, 'BCAAs' from a supplement shop, or illegally, "ecstasy"). I wouldn't recommend it, though. The cause of the problem is really a moot point. Once the dog is displaying those behaviours (inclusion criteria in the study I cited), drugs + behaviour modification works better than behaviour modification alone. Have a think about that. If we're just masking symptoms, why are they getting better faster? Sure, we can discontinue drug treatment and the dog goes back to being anxious, but why are treatment outcomes better when we use drugs?

Exactly right, although I would still urge you to see a behaviourist to get a behaviour modification plan. Medication reduces the anxiety, behaviour modification whilst in a receptive state cements it in for the longer term.

So what? Please direct me to the medical research that shows the comparative benefits of treating these problems with drugs as opposed to training? http://directory.umm.ac.id/Data%20Elmu/jurnal/A/Applied%20Animal%20Behaviour%20Science/Vol67.Issue4.2000/1638.pdf

The vet made an informed medical decision. There is ample evidence that clomipramine improves treatment outcomes for dogs displaying symptoms of separation anxiety. Dogs who display these symptoms are usually suffering from a biochemical imbalance that is well researched.

A wire crate is usually best. You need to condition him to the crate properly, no short-cuts. Begin here: http://www.sue-eh.ca/page24/page26/page10/ If it's a collapsible wire crate, use cable ties to secure it anywhere he might possibly try to squeeze through. Stitch it up tight, just in case. I would recommend a consult with a veterinary behaviourist. Clomicalm is one of the medications used to treat SA but a veterinary behaviourist would be better placed to offer both behaviour modification and medical advice. Making sure that he is well exercised each morning will go a long way to helping with the issue. Both physical and mental exercise, a bit of training can go a long way.

I missed the positive bit ... My brain should come with a warning on fridays "May make some sense occasionally" :laugh:

How about increasing the distance between the dog and the stimulus. The more times the stimulus 'goes away' to the dogs mind, the more they ramp it up to make it happen. That's negative reinforcement, which is how most distance increasing behaviours are learned.

Then the odds of this happening are very low. Without an autopsy, we cannot know. Even with an autopsy, many neurological disorders wouldn't show up (more likely to show up while the dog is alive, using a brain imaging technique - $$$). It's always possible that this sort of attack has a psychosocial origin, but whether the report of a king-size bed and an abundance of toys points to an owner who is overly permissive with his dogs, who knows? He might have just had a spare bed and took the advice of every modern dog trainer who advises preventing boredom.

Excellent :-)

You need a veterinary behaviourist, trained in veterinary medicine.

If, when you say "all day", you literally mean "all day" or even a good part of the day and it's a variety of resources then don't mess around. Straight to a veterinary behaviourist. GM makes a good point, dogs should never be left with food they haven't eaten. But your wording suggests a deeper issue than just overfeeding.

I think you may be right, Megan, although it's still an astounding suggestion. Burden of proof and all that. "Prove you're not a witch!"

There are a number of things in the news reports which make me wonder if what is being reported correlates with what the coroner has actually said?

Now, why would we do something so logical when m-sass and Brookestar know everything? For the latter's FYI, just because no one sees a dog being walked, it doesn't mean a dog is not being walked. There are plenty of DOLers who walk their dogs at stupid o'clock because of various factors. I currently never walk my dogs out of my house. We go in the car to various places. Anyone spying on me would say I never walked them. And apart from that, this particular dog lived elsewhere...

I can only assume that is a spectacular misquotation! It is logically absurd. "I'm sorry, I am unable to prove that this dog is a restricted breed, therefore it is not a restricted breed, your honour, and I ask that all charges be dropped immediately and costs awarded in my favour."

Not such a bad problem to have. Just keep walking, he'll wander off. Choose your opportunities wisely, he can't go too far.

You can't always do that in real life, a lot of the time the actions of others are out of your hands. Sure. Train first, proof later. This is not a problem I encounter.

I cut holes in the sides at the back of the muzzle, just join up a few of the rear-most holes that already exist. You can treat almost as fast that way as without a muzzle.