Salukifan

You don't even have to wave it SM, just use it to be a physical barrier between you. And to paraphrase Kindegarten Cop, "Labradors are like the sea, you should never turn your back on them". Stay on the fence line (if there is one) or find something to be at your back when he bolts around until you are repaired.

A rescue has no more obligation to sell you a dog than a breeder does. I appreciate that it can be frustrating when you know you are a good home but people aren't seeing it that way. But bear in mind that most rescuers have seen and heard it all and are cautious as a result. Move on, keep looking. No point dwelling on it.

"Wolves in sheeps clothing" were the words used by one dog trainer I respect. They need boundaries, training and a firm but fair hand or they can be little monsters. They are NOT lap dogs.

Whirl a lead or use a walking pole to force him to give space. If he's in total zoom mode, find a tree or a fence for your back. I doubt it will make you feel any better but I've had a broken wrist and a broken ankle from being hit by dogs in two separate incidents. Not my dogs though. I've also retrieved and taken a friend to hospital after her 'playful' Boxers broke her collarbone by knocking her over. It happens. ETA: Oh, and NEVER turn your back on them. That's how I broke my ankle.

Maybe he is insecure, and maybe she's rewarding the behaviour, or maybe she's not. Even if the behaviour is becoming more frequent, it's not necessarily because the owner is reinforcing it. This is why trainers and behaviourists should do functional analyses for problem behaviours. IMO a good functional analysis involves some experimentation if possible. I'm a pretty good guesser, but why guess when you can test? You can develop very specific and effective training plans if you know the function of a behaviour, and you don't need emotionally-laden words. Just objective observations. And really good dog handling skills, great people communication skills and good insurance. :)

Congratulations!!

You bought a breed that is territorial with strong protective instincts and a hard bite and this can be an undesirable consequence. This is not a "pet dog breed" you are dealing with but a livestock guardian. Put your expectations about what is "normal" in a baby puppy to one side and have a hard look at what you've got. It sounds to me like you've got a pup that's scaring you. Not good. Don't muck about. A bite in the first three days is not how I'd be wanting to start with a pup. Get yourself to an experienced and knowledgeable behaviourist NOW or return the pup. This is going to be a powerful dog and resource guarding doesn't get "cured". I wonder if this is going to work out honestly. Do you have children? There are experienced Maremma and other LGD people here. Change the title of this post to include the breed and hopefully they can assist. No offence to my fellow DOLers but if you decide to keep this pup, don't take internet advice about dealing with this behaviour. It can go very badly wrong.

Masking a blemish like a scar isn't changing a dog's colour. Doing that is very clearly against the rules of exhibition.

It happens. I can think of breed standards that have been changed to include some colours but not others. But that is a process that is worked through. Lots of consultation and generally that includes overseas folks. Not someone deciding based on a gut instinct that they know better.

Again, we need to answer the WHY. And if necessary CHANGE the breed standard. It does happen. Far better than blowing it off because you don't personally agree with it. .

So dismissive.

We still don't have an answer for WHY yellow is a disqualifying colour though. That is the most important question of all. You don't go mucking about with an established breed standard based on a whim before understanding PRECISELY what the change will result in. For example, is the coat the same in all three colours?? Based on the history of the breed, it may be that the FC folk wanted to keep the differentiation clear between the Flatcoat and the Golden Retriever. Maybe whilst they acknowledged the need for GR blood to increase the gene pool after WWII but, they wanted to favour the dogs that more closely resembled the 'old' upland retrievers based on the St John's dog and the Newfoundland before their decline. Certainly a black or liver dog would be far easier to see in upland country - important for a working retriever. A breed standard isn't an opt in for bits, opt out for others kind of deal. If you want a yellow gun dog with long hair there is one available. Given the number of health issues currently experienced by that long haired yellow gun dog, maybe the original Flatcoat people were onto something. The last thing you want is some cowboy breeding and selling a 'rare' colour in contravention of the breed standard. That seriously is the fast track to oblivion for breed type.

I dont think so. Neither do I. I fail to see how allowing a certain colour with no associated health issues completely decimates an entire breed. We are talking about colour not permitted by the breed standard. If that disqualification is considered no big deal, what else in that standard is then up for grabs? There are few health issues associated with height, with ear shape, with muzzle length, with foot shape. Shall those be OK too? This is what Wreckit is talking about when she mentions the slippery slope. A breed standard is a template for breeding. Most dedicated breeders regard it as what to aim for, not what to dismiss because it doesn't suit them when they've produced pups outside it. You don't get to pick and choose what's important based on what you're capable of producing. You strive to attain the breed standard, not to view it as an inconvenience. Lets not even discuss the "emergence" of breed colours hitherto unknown in and genetically impossible in breeds. White pugs, brindle pugs, black and tan French Bulldogs. Those OK too? It's just colour.

People get into animal rescue for a range of reasons, some of which have very little to do with animals. It's high stress, fairly hothoused and there's not a lot of appetite for 'outsider views' and a very real chance of losing all sense of perspective by becoming heavily involved over the longer term. I think, like child protection and other very mentally challenging professions, it's not for everyone, there comes a time when some need to step outside for a break and its hard to do it because you think animals will die if you don't keep at it. Rock, hard place. Damn difficult.

The best thing you can do to say thank you is to show your dog and remember her help through the good times and the bad. It's a roller coaster experience of highs and lows, of success and disappointment. Always keep in mind who gave you your start and if and when the time comes, pay it forward. The best thank you will be to take the breed forward from your start.

Yep, a Chris Christensen Cris Stic or black chalk would do it. Horse shops also tend to to have creams for darkening muzzles. That might be the easiest way to see some products if you don't have a decent dog grooming supplies place close to you

Sounds remarkably like a form of resource guarding to me. However I'm not a qualified and experienced behaviourist used to dealing with dog aggression. Most importantly, I've never seen the dog. She needs to see an experienced professional if she's going to continue to put her dog in such situations. I would be stopping it when it started and avoiding those situations until it was sorted (if it can be). Cocker spaniels are tough buggers, not a soft little toy breed. Time his owner stopped explaining his behaviour in soft terms and calls it what it is. "Aggression". When you use that word you run out of excuses for your dog's behaviour. At that point, you can move into dealing with it. Her dog's safety depends on her stepping up and dealing with him. I recall a very eminent dog behaviourist commenting some years ago that if people put as much effort and time into dealing with unwanted dog aggression as they did into diagnosing and explaining why it occurs, we'd have a lot less problem dogs in the world.

The thing with colour is to understand the genetics of it first. One article I've just browsed says the colours in FCs are as for Labrador Retrievers. That suggests your 'chocolate' Flatcoat is actually "liver". ETA: According to this explanation as I understand it you have liver Flatcoats.

Many breed standards specify temperament. What good is an LGD that is extremely dog social? Similarly what good is a protective and aloof gun dog? (although there is a gun dog that is expected to guard) I think a solid understanding of the "why's" of a breed standard should inform anyone embarking on the roller coaster of purebred dog breeding. Colour is immaterial for Whippets. The breed standard says so. But seemingly minor cosmetic issues like foot shape, top line, depth of chest etc all have a WHY. We are lucky to have some extremely wonderful books that spell out the whys for us. Is there a Flatcoat bible?

And soy content also.

I think you pup's breeder would be the first person to discuss these issues with. How you intend to keep the pup would be something, as a breeder, that I'd be wanting to know before I sold you one.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries. Unless, of course, the colour is disqualified for something other than a cosmetic reason.

"no" doesn't mean anything to a pup. It's simply white noise. Show him a preferred behaviour and reward it. At that age, he could be play growling, it could be something else. I suggest you enrol with a trainer and get some hands on help.

The short and rather obvious answer, even though it is intellectually unsatisfying, is "because the standard says so". We can speculate all we want on the "why's" but the standard is what is is, even if, as individuals we don't understand the why's of it. The other point that is often made (and which I agree with) is "if you aren't going to respect and breed within the standard, why have one at all"? If it's in, it's in. If it's out, it's out. If we were all to ignore the aspects of breed standards we didn't individually agree with, there wouldn't BE breeds. Or at least there wouldn't be for long. What would be next? Size? Coat type? Temperament? Colour is often linked to other genes. There may be old wisdom in the exclusion. Who knows?

Sometimes colour preferences and disqualifications relate to function. Perhaps a yellow Flatcoat is excluded because it is too "Golden Retriever" (noting that GRs were used to save the breed) or perhaps a yellow dog is simply too hard to see in certain hunting territory in the UK. Alternately, perhaps the colour is associated with other genetic faults and therefore frowned upon. I don't know the answer but sometimes there is a reason for the disqualification beyond a cosmetic one.