Aidan3

Agree with the other advice. Any time you need to "weigh up" the value of a reward or correction against the environment, it's a good sign to take a step back and re-evaluate how you can make things easier for the dog. I'm a bit of a purist, I try never to use rewards or corrections as a distraction if I can help it and I'd much rather move the dog away from the distraction and try again. It feels like you are going backwards sometimes, but it always pays dividends down the track. One trick I use with particularly excitable young dogs is to have the dog tethered a short distance away. Approach when the dog is sitting, stop if he is moving, take a step back if he is jumping. Your timing has to be very good to get the point across effectively, but it can make for a quick and lasting solution if done well. It can then be repeated with a helper while you hold the leash, standing as firm as a post and never letting him pull you (or your arm), not saying or doing ANYTHING. Just be a tether point. Your helper obviously needs to know what to do, so you practise before-hand without a dog.

They can learn all sorts of things, for e.g. "if mum comes home and there is a hole in the lawn, I get in trouble", but that doesn't necessarily mean they have linked everything together, i.e "if I dig this hole, I will be in trouble when mum comes home". They also learn how to act to appease you when you are upset about something. Part of this is innate, they are natural signals that most dogs share, and part of it is learned - they regulate those signals depending on what works for them to avoid further trouble. We often interpret this as "guilt" but it's really just a defence mechanism. There was a great video posted to these forums recently. The owner left a treat on the ground, told the dog to "leave it", then left the room. The camera person stole the treat. When the owner came back she was upset that the treat was gone and the dog looked very, very guilty. But if he didn't steal the treat, why did he need to look guilty? Simple, it was an appeasement gesture. He didn't feel guilt at all, he felt like he needed to avoid trouble. BIG difference. It would actually be fairly easy to do this demonstration with the owner coming back and not saying anything at all, or even being pleased to see the dog. But to do that you would have to discipline the dog when the treat was missing, repeated until the association was made. Then it wouldn't matter who stole the treat or how the owner acted when coming in the room, the dog would offer appeasement gestures. There would be no link between stealing the treat and offering appeasement gestures, but there would be a link between a missing treat and appeasement gestures.

That seems reasonable. Faulty ballasts in fluorescent lighting could also be the culprit. Illness can also cause this sort of behaviour, so keep a close eye on him.

There was some concern about the cats. I would have more concern about a dog who had killed a GP deliberately than one who was playing and killed it by giving it a heart attack. That was why I suggested checking over by a hunter or vet, any internal damage should be apparent to someone who knows what they are looking for. If the GPs were killed deliberately, I would seek a professional opinion regarding the cats (although the risk is probably not high if he has been well socialised with cats). But would you be able to tell from looking at internal damage whether it was over-exuberant play or a kill? No, but it's not unreasonable to consider that there may have been no shaking at all. They really can be frightened to death (heart attack). Play and prey are closely related, but there are play styles that wouldn't concern me at all regarding cats, but would kill a guinea pig. If there is no internal damage, then that's a really good sign. If there is internal damage, then a professional opinion would be helpful.

There was some concern about the cats. I would have more concern about a dog who had killed a GP deliberately than one who was playing and killed it by giving it a heart attack. That was why I suggested checking over by a hunter or vet, any internal damage should be apparent to someone who knows what they are looking for. If the GPs were killed deliberately, I would seek a professional opinion regarding the cats (although the risk is probably not high if he has been well socialised with cats).

Not to mention the safety of the children involved.

If there's barely a mark on them then he probably didn't even mean to kill them, guinea pigs can't tolerate very much in the way shock or fright. If you are worried, a vet (or someone who hunts rabbit) should be able to tell you if they've been shaken and killed.

What? Doesn't everyone loose their favourite water bowels at dog shows? That's why you should only take cheap ones.

The 'Lose' and 'Loose' error is the one that irks me the most!! You know what I hate? When you go to a dog show, and you loose your bowels. Especially on a hot day when you need the water the most.

So...many...temptations...must...resist...

The point is, it could look like a nice dog and pass the three available tests. It's not the dog in front of you, it's what's behind it that really counts. Type, temperament, structure and soundness Thanks, that makes sense. Lilli's comments also make sense, interesting discussion.

To enable me to understand this a little better, what potential issues with judges approval and DNA profiling do you see?

A former Biggest Loser contestant remarked that he was "literally crapping his dacks". I understand that being a contest on that show requires above average humility, but I probably would have kept that to myself.

We tried that once, it put a lot of noses out of joint

This is interesting - I think you have given me another way to procrastinate, I might have to do some Googling of that!!! One of the most significant experiments was Seligman's "learned helplessness" experiment. Unavoidable aversion leads to depression-like symptoms. In fact, the perception that aversion is unavoidable can have the same effect.

Some of the models for human depression were developed using dogs as test subjects. They sure do.

Balance. communication Clearing the coffee table

The probability of it developing into aggression towards other dogs is higher with this behaviour than without it, whether or not it will turn into something serious is not something anyone could say without knowing your dog or seeing how it develops. Sit-stay is a good option if your training so far is up to it. If "attention to another dog" predicts "attention to her" then that is a good thing, so long as it doesn't require misbehaviour to get it. If your dog can sit-stay while you give attention to another dog, then she is doing something good and being rewarded for it. If she is getting attention by jumping on you and demanding it, then that could lead to escalation, frustration and other unwanted behaviours.

My recollection is that bitumen is about the same price as marine carpet, but I can't keep up with the price of anything these days...

I dont for a second think he is an enthusiastic supporter of baiting. I said he seems to favour poisoning. If you know why he is targeting dogs being used by hunters in NSW state forests, a subject he knows nothing about and not campaigning against current 1080 baiting in NSW state forests and national parks if he doesnt find baiting a more favourable option for feral pest management then I would like to know. Then why on earth does his website promote ground-based shooting with flushing and bailing dogs (DPI's SOP) as the preferred option? What you are saying doesn't make any sense. In any case, do you think recreational hunters are going to effectively control feral pig populations? That would be a remarkable feat. Maybe that's why the Greens aren't up in arms about baiting or heli-shooting...

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count.

Only if you think that the world would be a much better place if humans did not exist (except for the intellectuals of course) and that we should feel very guilty for existing, hate our parents and grandparents for having us and we should never reproduce (except for the intellectuals of course) and that women are horrible creatures. All polished off with the concept that anyone who does not believe in this new religion is exactly the bad examples of humans they are talking about. Errmm, I think you're going somewhere else with that argument, shortstep. Satire isn't supposed to be taken seriously and is always as much a send-up of one side of the argument as the other. His jokes are deliberate reductions to the absurd and appear to any reasonable person to be just as ridiculous as their opposites. He will have plenty of material as long as hunters keep making silly claims about deer taking over the world, wolves destroying ecosystems, doing things like shooting protesters in the face after torturing ducks, and making spurious claims about this political party or that. In the meantime, the sensible majority pay the price by being lumped in with the vocal minority of yahoos.

Hum, I think it is this (see video below) sort of thinking that is pushing anyone who disagrees wiht it into the so called fringes of society. BTW I hope this fellow takes his own advice. Warning lots of bad launage and should be rated not for children. He's not going to run out of material any time soon though, is he?

So they are guilty until proven innocent and you can make whatever outlandish comment you want about them? Sorry, I happen to think it's this sort of attitude amongst the hunting community that is pushing hunters further into the fringes in the public eye. The issue here is the welfare of dogs and pigs in controlling feral pig populations, and they are supporting the DPIs position on this. I'm not sure where the other issues come into this? The issue at hand is something that can be avoided while still reducing pig populations. If you are referring to fox baiting, do you have a better idea? Maybe the Greens don't either. I don't have a problem with archers taking pigs so long as they take a clean shot, and I don't see the Game Council suggesting that archers go and take shots that don't meet DPI standards of practice.

The wording isn't exactly open to interpretation - "In the event that a dog latches on to a pig, the dog must be called off". The DPI are not controlled by the Greens, and at the end of the day this is their ruling made after consultation with a broad range of interests. So far you've not directed us to any Greens policy in support of baiting of feral pigs, and the only comment from a Greens MP was in support of hunting with dog and rifle. I'm not denying the Greens push policy which erodes the rights of hunters, but I don't think your comments are in any way accurate or even a reasonable reflection of their policies or ideals.