Erny

............ at the risk of sounding anal about the stuff - Calendula Tea !!! *sniff* ...... yummmmmmmm, fresh . IMO

Hey - that happens to me too! Don't know what it is about PDF - maybe the type is larger/clearer and therefore the words (and hence their spelling) stand out more . I edit a lot after posting as well. A bit like the PDF I think, in that somehow errors (spelling and grammatical) seem to stand out more once the post is submitted.

Certainly they would. But I think my point is being lost? If you are posting, looking for a trainer who might be able/interested in helping Michael out, it would probably help more to know with a bit more clarification, what Michael actually wants/needs from the dog, to at least give people reading a 'starting' idea as to whether what or who they know is suitable to take that first step.

Oh dear, Troy . Perhaps you've not been wearing your tin cap enough? Aliens .............. Its always the way. There's the problem off not taking enuff care and them their's the problem of taking to much. :D

Your grammar could be betterer to, Troy I am convinced this is a DOL engine fault as it happens to me often enough. "Than" appears, when I know I meant and was thinking "That" and so on. Hey - and it can be a good way to learn. Some of the spelling rules I learnt in early school days I've forgotten and reading these sorts of threads helps to remind me.

On top of everything else, I think there would be the danger of a 'libellous suit" if Michael is actually asking for someone to help train a dog "for guide/assistance" purposes. What I mean by that is regardless of Michael's intent, the trainer he seeks could be held liable (if not by Michael then potentially by someone else) because the trainer took on the job knowing that Michael wants a guide or an assistance dog (this is why I asked which one of these he actually wants and it can make a great difference) and that his life/safety may rely on the training of that dog. NB: I'm not a lawyer and consequently my concerns regards to the above might be held to be ill-founded, but they are concerns to be overcome all the same and may be part of the reason why Michael finds it difficult to find someone to help him train up his own dog outside of the usual (and good) formal and expert channels. Even if the legal side of things can be satisfied, there would still be the immense pressure on the trainer who would know that regardless of Michael's own assurances of "it's ok", they would still carry the burden of (at least a sense of) responsibility should the worst happen and the dog fails its duty in some catastrophic way. So this would also add up to another reason why Michael might find it difficult to find a trainer to assist him and is also another reason why clarification of exactly what he wants/expects could be helpful. If he wants a dog to be able to perform skills that would assist him but would not necessarily be life dependant and he can explain/clarify this, then it might make it easier for him to find a trainer who would be (a) capable and (b) comfortable enough to help him.

Is it an assistance dog he needs or is it a dog to guide him as a guide dog would? There is a difference between the two. I have a feeling the above isn't you being nice ??? Or am I mistaken?

Yes. How can Michael train his dog to (eg) not cross at a red light or when a car is coming, when Michael himself can't see the red light or car coming to be able to set up for it? This would be just one of the many many things the dog needs training for and the training needs to be intensive and extensive. When you are entrusting your (and other people's) life to a dog, I would certainly not recommend a DIY job.

I'm afraid I can't answer your question siks3 but I would be more concerned that a dog is getting bathed every 2 weeks. I thought that with the shampoos today not being detergent based it's not as bad as it was years ago and it was ok to bath more frequently. I may be wrong though. AFAIK if it bubbles, there is detergent. Anything that cleans the oils from our dogs' coats isn't good when it is done frequently (IMO).

I'm afraid I can't answer your question siks3 but I would be more concerned that a dog is getting bathed every 2 weeks.

I am inclined to think they are a great tool on many dogs. By that I mean that I would prefer to replace every single check chain and head collar with a PPCollar. Save that there are a few (not many, though) dogs who "back in the good ol' days" when we were permitted the use of this tool, were a bit too sensitive for them and would bounce into its correction and then bounce again as a result of that bounce. Those dogs were usually well enough suited to a martingale or even a flat collar. IMO the PPCollar is kinder to the dog not only in terms of learning clarity but also in terms of the physical effect of the PPCollar - which, when applied, works at skin level - whereas others work (intentionally or otherwise) on skin, muscle and skeletal. And I agree with the "positive training". Nekhbet I think has also already said it in this thread. IE That in all good training there is positive reinforcement.

Oh . That's really really sad. On more than one level. I feel very much for those animals, just as your Dad would have. But I feel also for your Dad, who lives with those memories. It would be bad enough having to live with memories of any of what the RSPCA and other shelter workers must do when the animals in their care aren't homed. But to live with those memories knowing there was a better way but it wasn't permitted for financial reasons must be awful and I hope they don't plague your Dad too much as this would not have been his fault.

It's a BAD law when you realise you stand to abide by the law (which we must) OR give priority to what we know would be in the best interests of the dog. There should be no "OR" in it. And yes, the unfairness of this HAS been enough to make me cry at times.

Oh gosh. I'd forgotten that. How very dare I.

As we do. But Tobias, well - he is set up for a life, however long that shall now be, of security, care and comfort. He is truly blessed to have found an understanding and caring home. Well done .

Even more perplexing is their very own admission that they have no supporting evidence (not only that - but that they admit there IS NONE), yet their continued stance and refusal to re-address and turn the law on the basis that its passing breaches the laws of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice. It is sheer arrogance and it can only lead one to think that there is another different agenda that is shared by the RSPCA (who proposed and pushed the ban in the first place) and the Labor Government, that is not necessarily related to animal welfare.

I don't remember my Mum and Dad explaining death to me. I must ask them whether they did (per se) and what they said.

Yeah - it is a real shame and also a fraud and nothing to do with animal welfare that they were banned in Victoria. What got me was in a letter to all MP's (Australia Wide) on behalf of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers it was written : Reference "(1)" (which was the only reference) was actually a booklet put out by the American Humane Association "Guide to Humane Dog Training". In that booklet it actually says (of prong collars) : "Conditionally recommended as a humane training restraint ... " ETA: Hope you're enjoying California, Sandgrubber.

Would you say I had alot of hair? way to much Nah. I was joking. You're hair cut is grate.

You need a hair cut, Aidan.

Hhhhhmmmm. I STILL don't think the OP dog is a hairless x. I think it is pure daxxy with a skin condition that shouldn't be ignored. Not that it is being ignored. But I think more tests (skin and blood) are required. Just MO, of course .

I tend to agree. I am certainly no expert 'on children' but like everyone else, I've been one. Children have a wonderful knack in taking from the truth what they need to take and only so much of it as they can manage. And I tend to find that children can see through things more than we give them credit for, so fudging isn't really appreciated (IMO). Let her know it was an accident and that everyone is sad and misses Riley. I'm sorry for your experience. T'would have been beyond dreadful. RIP Riley

Yes . Great, huh? They're thinking sentient beings just as dogs are, although it really isn't until more recent times that we (ie people) have begun to explore and think about enriching their environment. A foal frolicking in a field will often be seen to toss a stick or some object and then engage in the joy of such a simple thing. A horse can be seen pushing/pulling/nudging items of interest in a paddock. We don't tend to think of horses as 'fun loving' in this way But they are .

I would expect a dog weak on nerve would flick out of prey drive and into defence quite quickly.

Thanks everyone. I like the idea of handles (rope or moulded) for the sake of the owner/handler, who has a bit of trouble with arthritic hands. But of course we need at least two so that the dog can grab on one of them. I've passed on the Super Striker and also the Jolly Balls ideas to the owner today and will mention the others to her as well, to let her make the choice. She knows more than I as to which she would find the easiest to manage/handle. Appreciate your help. Love DOL. It affords such great access to a broad spread of people with a wealth of info and experiences . Cheers Erny