Erny

I don't think the above are generalisations .... in fact, I think they are very directional and pointed. But when you think about it, they've ruled out anyone who uses any training/management device on dogs, as any equipment style has "the potential for harm" as does any training methodology - although noting the AVSAB has been selective about naming only certain styles. But I doubt "joe public" would pick up on that fact. I agree with Cosmolo. It's also my opinion that a dog should recover from a correction quicker than 30 seconds. I don't think comparison of dog to wild antelope is a good one.

.... I did this the other day, and I definitely couldn't mistake that "couldn't fit another thing in" look. Couldn't believe how much he managed to stack away either. He did get to the point where he hid (read : buried) the last two chicken wings. But they only lasted buried for about 15 minutes .... I'm sure he couldn't stand the fact they were out there and not in his stomach where there was NO chance of something else getting them.

Something else I was thinking about as I was driving to take my boy out for a jaunt in the park. Is it me, or has the AVSAB written in a fashion that makes it, on first reading, seem as though they are taking a balanced perspective, yet by the mere omission to naming all of the training tools that "punish" (I mean, what about the head-collar and the no-pull style of harnesses?) lead people to believe it is only use of THOSE tools named by it that cause the supposed problems that they speak of? They broadened the actual paper to focus on "punishment" yet they only paired it with seemingly selective training tools. Is this coincidental? Did they do that on purpose? If they did, is that because in writing their "position statement" they have an agenda? Is it designed as a style of brainwash? (Am I being too harsh?) If not, then is it simply a matter of them not understanding the fundamentals of (a) how training equipment works and/or (b) how punishment works? The other thing that gets me is how come, if training in the absence of punishment is the way to go (and it has been advocated and practiced more and more over the years), why are we seemingly seeing more and more dogs surrendered for boisterous behaviour? Why isn't it the reverse? Don't get me wrong .... I'm all for positive where positive is sufficient, and I use lots of it in my training. My own (now nearly 7mo) pup has been and is being trained on a flat collar without physical corrections. I love this where it will work. But I recognise that training is not a 'one size fits all' matter yet statement releases such as the AVSAB's seems to be trying to channel people's beliefs that the view of training and the variety of training tools available should be narrowed down.

I wouldn't criticise AnimalMad too heavily. From what I gather, she didn't know about the dog's illness to begin with and on top of that the Vet him/herself advised it to be ok to be groomed. I wouldn't have groomed the dog either, if I'd known up front, but AnimalMad is not the 'guilty' party here, IMO.

From what I have researched : Feed all the dog can eat and when he's giving you that "couldn't fit another thing in" look and/or 'stashing' his food for 'later', you know your dog's capacity. THEN you feed about 2/3rds of that quantity. This is from Ian Billinghurst's "Give a Dog a Bone". OR Feed 10% of your dog's current weight (I think that's written here, too) OR Feed 2/3rds of your dog's projected adult weight (I think that's written here too, but can't say I agree with that for a growing pup).

If it is something they will 'chew' on, then I don't think it is a problem. Can actually assist in hot weather and also during teething. If it is something they are likely/able to swallow down in a 'gulp' then I prefer not .... my Mum used to say to me about taking in things that were too cold and something along the lines of a "chill in the stomach". So if it is bones, I don't have an issue. If it is otherwise intended as 'soft' food, I prefer to thaw. If it is thawed but still has that 'frozen' temperature to it, I am inclined to add a bit of hot water to bring it slightly closer to air temp.

Overall, I think the AVSAB's "statement" release loses credibility when you recognise the statements it has made that are (a) wrong; and/or (b) seemingly sweeping statements that are not backed up with researched reference. From their "statement" it also seems to me that they do not have a full understanding and knowledge of the application of training methodology that goes along and in conjunction with the training aids they have seemingly decried or disprove of.

An excerpt from "Critics of Punishment" in Steven Lindsay's "Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training" Sorry ..... I can't seem to put my hand on the quote that I wanted to use .... relating to use of punishment in training. Will put it here when I get a better chance to look more thoroughly.

I agree with this definition, and probably should have resourced to their definitions before I started. But if this is their definition, then by rights they are precluding the withholding of treats; sin-binning; ignoring; and the like, yet they make no mention of these activities nor of the fall-out or even the potential psychological affect these things can have.

The problem with this is that with behaviours where "punishment" is effective, application of "punishment" at the outset of the behaviour usually results in (a) a lesser punishment being necessary to be effective and (b) because the behaviour has not had the opportunity to become ingrained and inadvertently reinforced over time, the dog receives fewer "punishment" applications for the behaviour. I've not worded the above very well .... hope it makes sense.

What the AVASB haven't taken into account is the dog whose behaviour is such that it simply can't be ignored, where the behaviour becomes potentially injurious to the person due to extinction burst and then becomes worse because the owner has been forced to 'act' prior to the extinction burst peaking.

I didn't mean to start pulling apart the AVASB Statement in this manner, but I can't help it as I keep seeing these sorts of statements. Firstly, I'd like to know where they gathered their statistics to be able to release a statement that suggests "punishment" is what the general public use first up. I can only speak from my own experience and from what I learn/hear from others, but I tend to find that many of the unwanted behaviours that have developed and are for what people need me to help with, is because the owner has been loath to "punish" their dog at all. Still haven't finished reading the whole article, and I really do need to leave this aside for the time being. Would be interested to read comments of others as to some of the things I've highlighted by my posts when I get back. Perhaps agreeing, or perhaps not.

I'm not wanting this to become an debate on using the alpha roll -vs- not using it (I don't normally advocate it myself, but for other reasons) BUT, IMO, the alpha roll is not about "throwing" anything, let alone a dog down on its back.

(My highlights) Is that a sweeping statement, or just my imagination? When I have utilised various of the training tools in the process of training and/or rehabilitating dog behaviour, I have not used the tool to elicit "strong fear response".

What!!?? No they can't. RSPCA were taken to court (and lost) over such an accusation. Wonder where AVSAB got their information for this one?

Shows up that they have not taken into account the methodology that is being used. For example, with e-collar training, I use negative reinforcement/low stim. The problem the AVSAB describes above doesn't occur with that method. And once a person knows and understands the method, it is surprising at how little skill and effort is required in comparison to other equipment AND in comparison with PP Training.

I use what works best for the animal (taking into account situation; circumstance and environment). I do strive to use "minimum for maximum" effect and sometimes that is the use of the PPCollar, or e-collar or check chain. Couple that with a good behaviour modification technique and the results can be quite amazing and speaking 'time wise', efficient and emotionally economical. I do not agree that the equipment items referred to should be viewed with a "use them only if all else fails". That attitude doesn't always help the dog nor the dog's owners and can sometimes lead to the behaviour becoming more ingrained than it otherwise needs to. Reading even just that first paragraph seems to conjur the image that if you have one of the aforesaid collars fitted that you're therefore not using other training methodology in combination. I don't think that's right either. It also seems to imply that other training methodology (including what we commonly know/refer to as "PP" training) doesn't have potential adverse affects such as "increased fear-related and aggressive behaviours" or "injury to animals and people interacting with animals" and I disagree with that concept as well. Haven't checked out the rest of the article yet so can't give further comment at this point of time. Will have to return to this later.

My previous girl would only eat offal if it was cooked. Today was the first time I've given my young boy offal (chicken liver) and he scoffed it down (raw) no hesitation. Thanks for your responses everyone, and Jamie, for the info. I think I will prefer to feed the offal separately (as opposed to mincing up with everything else). That way, if anything causes the runs I will be able to leave off it for a while if not completely, if it turns out to not agree with him. In fact, that's the way I make up his meals already. Packages of pulped vegies/fruit. Packages of the meat varieties (each variety separate). Packages of offal (each variety separate). Etc. etc. Then I can select what I want to feed and mix it up as I want to. He doesn't like his greens very much (typical boy ) so I keep them separate. That way I haven't ruined the whole of everything else by mixing it all in.

:D ..... must taste different. Maybe a bit like that I hate drinking wine from an ordinary glass. LOL We only have one gooby .... oops!, I mean "liver" don't we? I will guess that chooks only have one as well. Which would mean about 3 goobies per week. Meat is soooooo revolting. Yuck. Thanks for your response, Anniek. PS. I feel cheated. The chicken frames from my wholesale butchers comes goobiless .

My highlights. ;) OMG!!!! I'd be feeling somewhat murderous about that Vet! How on earth can they give that sort of response? Why would they write off a "reaction to the medication" even if they had been correct? Mind you, I've had a Vet clinic brush me off when the problem was actually very serious too. Their response when they did finally agree to see her? "Well, she didn't die so that's ok" (or words very close to those). Some Vets are diamonds. Some are stone. Poor dog. If he had a chest infection why the Vet would have thought the stress of grooming, not to mention having a wash, was "ok" is beyond me. RIP little pooch.

Hoping the OP doesn't mind me popping in here with a question - it is relevant to raw feeding though ;). I'm feeding my young boy (6.5 mo RR .... currently 28.2kgs) all raw (including mixture of vegies, yoghurt, fish etc). I've just included chicken livers as part of his diet. How many of the chicken livers should I feed in one 'sitting'? I presume these should only be fed about once a week as I believe too much is not good? Advice from others would be appreciated :D. Cheers! Erny

I'd be a bit dubious as to how well a root canal to a canine would stand up with all the rigour it receives in day to day chewing/biting.

Hi Botheration. If you click my signature link it'll take you to my website. At my website, go to "events" and then click on "Meet Mandela" in the drop-down box. I am waaaaaaay behind with updating on Mandela's adventures, but what is written there is in PART some of his socialisation experience. Since then we've been so many different places .... building up to both Melbourne CBD (which included train travel; tram travel; elevators in high rise buildings; walking along main road in CBD - al the noises, sights, sounds that go with it; etc.) and to Tullamarine Airport. I'd been pretty busy up to the Christmas lead up, I'm afraid the site has got away from me. I'll try to further the up dates soon. But it will give you a bit of an idea of my approach to socialisation. If you are still feel as though it is a bit of a dilemma, feel free to call me if you'd like to have a phone chat about it.

Sydking .... is there a reason why you want her to learn to toilet on newspaper? I mean, do your living arrangements (eg. flat/unit) dictate that your pup does not have access to a yard area? If she does, why teach her it's ok to soil inside on a newspaper only to then later have to train her out of soiling inside on a newspaper? I'm not a fan of that 'intermediatary' step, unless there's a really good reason for it. Oh .... and it is "crate", not "create". And crate training is only an aid to toilet training. You still need to toilet train, which means getting up and taking your pup out for a toilet break frequently. Every two hours is what I recommend in the first couple of days, gradually extending that in half hour increments until puppy is more able to hold on.

Ummmm .... have I understood you correctly? Because if I have, it seems to me you left him with too much room to move. It seems to me he's learnt that soiling in his pen is ok. All that is changed (from what I am surmising) is that you've increased the blanket/mat area. Does he need all the bed area you provide for him at the moment?