Erny

This is from the version of the DFNA Act which includes amendments as at December 2007 28A Offence to train dogs to attack A person must not train a dog to attack, bite, rush at, chase or in any way menace persons, animals or anything worn by persons, unless the dog is so trained— (a) in the course of conducting a domestic animal business on premises that is registered under Part 4, if training of such a nature is authorised under that registration; and (b) that person— (i) is conducting; or (ii) is employed by a person who is conducting— a domestic animal business on premises that is registered under Part 4. Penalty: 60 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months. 34A Dangerous dogs A dog is a dangerous dog if— (a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the purpose of guarding non-residential premises; or (b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any person or any thing when attached to or worn by a person. Some amendments were made to the Act again in June 2008, but none of them appear to affect either of the above sections. I cannot find anything via google that suggests a review of the DFNA is currently underway so I'd be interested with what you turn up, Issis.

Are there? I am fully aware of the proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008, but not of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. Although I did here talk somewhere along the line that it would be changed and I recall one of those changes was that the name of the Act would drop the "Feral and Nuisance" words out of its title. Steve might be right, although I would suggest confirmation be obtained by reading the Act itself rather than taking someone else's word for it.

The testing is about $90. On top of that you have the Vet's fee for drawing the blood as well as the FedEx courier to ship the bloods to the USA. I am thinking about $250 (give or take) might cover it. It isn't an amount to exactly break the bank, but it isn't something to be sneezed at either. However I would consider the expense well worth while if only for the peace of mind that you have checked it out. Good luck FTPO. You know we'll be waiting her for you to refresh your thread with an update. ETA: There are quite a few Vets out there who think "nup .... wouldn't be thyroid". It isn't so much their fault as it is that they're just not aware of this fairly recent research. I find that many Vets only consider thryoid auto-immune deficiency when the dog is showing the classical clinical symptoms. But those classical clinical symptoms don't appear until the thyroid tissue is 70% destroyed and this is usually considerably later in the dog's life.

Yes .... I have been known to use the term "humour me, please?" when I've dotted around to Vets insisting there was something wrong with my girl and them thinking instead there was something wrong with me. Make out it is for your sanity, not that you are questioning her if you feel uncomfortable about this Vet also being your friend.

FTPO .... If it were me, I would. Otherwise you might find you'll be forever questioning yourself over an avenue that has not been covered. Will it be a waste of time and money? Perhaps, unless you regard it as money well spent simply to rule out the possibility of your dog's health issue being related at its grass roots in a dysfunctional thyroid. When my avatar girl (that's the one I had to say goodbye to 2 years ago) was ill, I asked for thyroid tests to be done. They were and according to the Vets here they came back normal. As disappointed as I was because a 'normal' result meant her symptoms indicated a more serious condition, I moved on with other checks, tests and so-on. To this day I reflect back and wonder if I knew then (about the testing and analysis availability through Dr. Dodds) what I know now, maybe the results would have been different. Maybe. Maybe. Or maybe not. But I wish I could know the answer to that with a winding back of time, because then it would have been the only remaining 'stone left unturned' that I can think of. So if it were me? Yep. I'd have the tests done.

RosieFT, you are more than welcome. Just don't despair too much. At the beginning, training dogs seems oh so complicated - what with all the words and commands, and the when to praise and when to not, blah blah. But with a bit of clarity to the instruction you're receiving I expect you'll find that one day very soon all those pennies will drop and you'll be looking back wondering how come you didn't get it straight away, so simple will it seem to you. It will all come together - whether it be with the school you're with or another, or with a private lesson or two or three, along with of course that enthusiasm and dedication . Be assured of that. Let us know how you get on . Cheers! Erny ETA : Cute little Foxie btw . Wiley little critters. Too smart for their own boots sometimes . I've worked with a few of them. Clever little munchkins they are. Love his one brown leg. I had to look twice as at first I thought he was wearing a white vest/jacket of sorts, but it is his markings it seems. Cute!

You're referring to the scent training you witnessed? I wasn't there, but did the dog finish on a 'win' and did the dog receive his/her reward/s for that? Usually that is a game of tug or a 'jackpot' of food reward, depending on what the dog prefers.

Unless your dog is at a very advanced level of training, no .... the release command shouldn't come "after a huge chunk of training". You command "sit". Your dog sits. You release with your "free" word and have a huge chunk of fun! Pick your release word and stick with it. Whether that be "OK" or whether you choose for it to be "free". And you use it to release your dog from a command every time, UNLESS you are merely changing from one command to another (eg "sit" then "drop" then "stand" then "heel"). Although I don't think you're up to that level of training yet with so many commands following on from each other - but I trust you get what I mean? I can't help to think that you have actually gotten confused with what your trainer has said? Are you sure your trainer has instructed you to only use a release word after the end of the training session, as opposed to the end of each individual obedience exercise? Perhaps there's been some missed communication between the transgression from one level to the next and one instructor to another. Is there someone at your dog obedience school who you can call to clarify? If the confusion is something your school has caused (it happens) it would be good for them to know that so they have an opportunity to catch up the others in your class who also might be confused for the same reason. Ummmm .... definitely talk to the higher management and let them know that you feel you are not receiving the help you need. Give them a chance to explain it. Sometimes asking for help inside a class of that size is something the instructor on the day and at the time can't give you. But if the school knows ahead of time, they might be able to organise something (or someone) who can give you a bit more helpful guidance. I'm not excusing them, but sometimes that's the difference between paying for dog obedience classes as opposed to engaging one-on-one assistance. The instructors usually can't afford to give you their full attention when others need and deserve instruction as well. However, with those realistic expectations in mind, it does sound as though explanation was not necessarily clear (especially considering others in your class are experiencing the same dilemma) and I would expect any reputable dog school to welcome your feedback and concerns so they can not only alleviate them but if necessary take steps to ensure as best as possible that the problem is not likely to occur again. It does sound like you're receiving conflicting information. As above, I'd strongly suggest you speak to the higher management of the school. If it proves that they are unable to assist you, it is up to you as to whether you feel you would be better with tuition from elsewhere and in this instance if you let us know your location then someone here might be able to provide you with recommendation/s. But first speak to the school management and give them an opportunity to know of the problem, to fix it and to provide you with some help to clear up the confusion and apparent conflicting advice. And I would like to see your enthusiasm, effort and dedication nourished. Don't let it be the school that gets you put off from doing this. You haven't failed! You just haven't quite mastered it yet and your confusion isn't assisting. Speak to them first and go from there. Let us know if we can be of any help once you have . Even perhaps one private lesson might help you work things through very quickly. Does your school provide you with that service (albeit with an additional fee)? Many and most group class trainers will try to give "one-on-one" help as, when and if they can, but it isn't something you're 'entitled' to. That's something you do need to keep in mind and respect. However, you are entitled to instruction that is not conflicting and that is clear, and if you are receiving neither then you should be entitled to request the school remedy whatever error on their part has created it. I never recommend trying to teach for "heel" until loose lead walking is established. Regardless, loose lead does not mean long lead (just as short lead does not mean tight lead) - don't know if that's where what the instructor has said has confused you. I'm not going to try to justify, explain nor clarify what the instructor might or might not have meant as not being there makes that impossible. But definitely, speak to higher management and if you do not receive the assistance you need to straighten out the confusion, then perhaps another school would be better for you. Don't allow the frustration of it to get to you to the point you give up in dismay. But simultaneously, remember that a private lesson or two is another option for you.

Thank you Dogdude for adding the above. Using the "yes" marker prior to release and reward is what I do too . I forgot to mention that, I think. And also for mentioning the "gooooood" for exercises that are longer (eg. stay work). Erny

No you're not risking that at all. It can all be confusing at the beginning and it's good to try to get it straight and keep it as simple as possible from the beginning. Yes. It is fine to switch from one command to another without giving the release word. In this (above) case your release word is "OK". If you want "OK" as your release word then that's what you use in all cases to release your dog from being in a command to NOT being in a command. Whilst a dog is under a command though, I wouldn't use "good" in high pitched excited tones - that will only serve to encourage her to break from the command. I tend to use it more in lower but encouraging tones. I use the high pitched happy/exciting tones ONCE I have released the dog from the command by using (in your case) the "OK" word. I won't argue 'handling technique' at this point as that's not really what the topic is about and also because you are under instruction from your trainer. However for loose lead walking (and I don't mean "heel") the dog is in "release mode". So in my opinion, there's no need for the "OK" word. If your dog is not under a command there's nothing to release her from. I don't use a command for loose lead walking because I teach my dog that this is an automatic expectation, not something I want to have to tell him/her each time. I do similar but only for training "in drive". A word that switches drive on and a different word that switches it off. In between, "free" is the word I use to release the dog from being under a command. What explanation has your trainer given to you for needing to use two different words (ie "OK" and "Free") if you're not training in drive? For the more common style of training (which is usually termed "avoidance training" in the technical circles) I like to teach a dog to "live" for the release command, so I only use the one "release" word. If the dog is not (training) in drive, I'm not sure I see the need for a second different release word to signify 'lesson session over' as with each practiced command that's effectively what you're doing with the "OK" word. I'm not saying your trainer is wrong - many of us have our different ways for different reasons. And perhaps it is that I just don't understand what it is that you've been taught or for why. For the initial phase of training I use similar. Something like "nice sit .... good". But I use low, soft, encouraging tones - just as feedback to let the dog know that he/she is doing what I want him/her to do. But I use that only when the dog is 'holding' the command, not wait until the dog goes to break. If the dog goes to break a verbal correction (eg. "ahh") is better IMO. Otherwise, your dog may learn that to get you to give her nice feedback, she needs to jiggle or threaten to break. Well, not specifically. Because you're teaching her that "OK" means you're not under command anymore, that's all she's learning. She would be crossing the road of course, probably because you are too. So the word "OK" in this instance is not specifically related to crossing the road. It just tells her she doesn't have to sit anymore. That you are crossing the road is incidental. I don't teach "sit" at the curb. It annoys me. I work to teach a dog simply to not cross the road unless he/she hears the word from me to say it is fine to do so, regardless of what position the dog has adopted/volunteered (eg. sit/stand/drop) when we came to a halt there. I hate needing (for the sake of training) to stop at every curbside we come across so my dog will sit. I only want my dog to refuse to cross the road unless he/she hears my word that says it is alright to do so. I use the word "cross" for this. So my word "cross" IS specific to crossing the road. Nope, you haven't 'messed up'. I think you're simply using two different release words when one would do. But check with your trainer first for the reason I mentioned above. I don't cross train over another trainer as sometimes what gets written to me is not exactly what is meant, or is simply that trainer's 'style' of training and by all accounts would probably be fine, even if it does appear to me by what you've said to be a bit more superfluous than what I suspect it needs to be (ie two release words). And because a person receiving instruction from one trainer and then asking it of another can confuse the issue even further for that person. There is also ethics involved . You need to talk to them about how to move on to intermittent schedule of rewards. Well timed, placed and judiciously used corrections can do wonders for some dogs' training. Makes their learning more black and white than does all reward and no correction IMO.

Terms such as "good" or "good boy/girl" I use as encouragement and feedback .... letting them know their behaviour is on the right track. "Yes" I use as the marker word to let them know they did what I wanted. "Free" I use to release the dogs from whatever command they might have been under at the time. In the earlier days of training, and assuming I am using a food treat as reward, I release ("free!") and then treat. Only because in those early days the excitement of receiving the treat can inadvertently induce a break of the command prior to release. As their skill/s improve (and depending on the exercise) I give "feedback" ("good") and give the food treat (again, assuming this is what I'm using) whilst they are still in the command, releasing ("free!") and engaging in more active reward after that. In your case, you seem to be using "OK" as a release word in some instances and "Free" in others? Or is it a case that "OK" in the way you use it is a command to say it's fine to cross the road? But if that's the case, when do you then bring in your "Free" release word to indicate to your dog that he/she is no longer under a command and that you have no particular expectations of behaviour (save for those which are standard and always in place, eg. not pulling on lead etc). I don't use a command for stopping at curbs before roads so I don't need to "release" from there. I use the word "cross" though to tell the dog it is now ok to proceed across the road. But if I did give the command to (eg) "sit" before the curb, I would give "free" to release and "cross" to proceed over.

Teacher, as Boxerbob has suggested, it *sounds* as though your little one is trying you out. When she balks, use your lead not to drag her as such, but keep walking with little 'pops' on the lead. If you only pull, opposition reflex is likely to kick in. ETA: Couple this with encouragement and praise when she gives you any forward movement. And avoid turning around to directly face her as that can serve to 'block' her forward movement rather than encourage it. Face her more on an angle. As a form of encouragement, use your hands to clap and have them at her eye level. Is it possible that there is some connection that she's made between *going home* and *meal time* ? If there is, this could be the very reason why she wants 'home'. Dogs are very clever at 'playing' us. Of course, they aren't doing it to be smarty pants, it's just that they work out very quickly where (what they perceive to be) their advantage lies.

Back in the days when dogs 'free roamed' they'd often come home with someone else's bone they'd found or dug up. Heaven's knows how OLD some of those things were. Like Jed describes, they were often a funny shade of green. Don't even think we bothered to take them from them. Just screwed up our faces, made disgusted noises, said how we were glad we weren't dogs and left them to their enjoyment. Absolutely no illnesses ever arose from those occasions. Mind you, back in those days it was pretty common to feed dogs the juicy cooked bones from the Sunday roast . Would never do it now, but we never did have any problems then either. Must have just been lucky .

I'd remove the rancid bone but wouldn't worry too much about it. Just keep your eye on him and be on the look out for any possible tummy upset.

Before I proffer a suggestion I'd like to rule something out. Look at your youngster's body language. Does he appear fearful at all?

Check chains do come with the unfortunate label of "choker" and it does send the wrong message to people who purchase them as they tend to think as you have that "the dog pulls, the chain will tighten, so the dog will back off". Unfortunately, this is not the case and a bit of good tuition from a trainer knowledgeable and familiar with check chains will show you how to best use them minimally for maximum effect. Head halters have their place for some and whilst I have recommended them to some people in certain circumstances, I am not a fan of them. Regardless, if you chose a head halter, you need to know that these are not necessarily the 'kind' restraint they first appear nor even as you might be lead to believe. The head halter offers you much leaverage over the dog's head, which is what gives you so much instant control. But it is also open to skeletal damage occurring to the dog's neck as a result .... damage that you won't or can't necessarily see happening at the time. The muzzle strap has the real potential of causing abrasion to the sensitive skin across the top of the dog's muzzle as well. With a 20 week old pup, the world is his/her oyster and it doesn't take much for his/her attention to be drawn to lurching out to a leaf blowing in the breeze or whatever. I am very cautious in any approach and with any advice in the handling of a dog wearing a head halter and personally would be inclined to not recommend one at all for a dog so young - mentally and physically speaking. There are other tools that are available for use but in my opinion each carries with it risk of harm especially if you are unaware of how to 'work' the tool properly. For pups/young dogs, I tend to favour the martingale but it would still stand you in good stead to receive some tuition in what to do and when and how to best handle the lead. I often point out to people that the lead itself is a training tool, or at least an extension of the training tool to which it is attached, so it is important people know how to work it for the best effect. You should also be aware that it is not the tool that does the training - it merely assists in it. Use of a training tool needs to be coupled with a training method to achieve the best possible results. Where are you located Belinda? Perhaps we can make a trainer or dog school recommendation to you?

If it were me I expect I would work on the behaviour utilising an e-collar to help. But is this something you want to try to train away from even if she was off lead (I ask because tmk they aren't permitted off lead). If not, then perhaps the use of a different correctional tool will help.

Hi Jessca. Yes. The more the merrier. The only thing is now is that the dead line for submission of public comment is 5pm on this coming Monday, 17th November. It is now best (and helpful) if you address your submission to : POCTA Regulation Review Bureau of Animal Welfare 475 Mickleham Road Attwood VIC 3049 and EMAIL it to them at [email protected] For it to count, you must get it in by the aforementioned closing date and time. Your effort will be worthwhile, Jessca. If you email me a copy of what you've done I will include it also in the "parent submission" that I have yet to get to them. The Government seem to be looking for (truthful, of course) stories where dogs' behaviours have been rehabilitated to the degree that reliance on use of the Pressure Point Collar (ie "prong" collar) is no longer necessary. Explanation as to the reduced frequency of corrections; increased frequency of "good stuff" (so to speak). Why they are so insistent on this yet care less about what happens in the use of the other tools they - through the recommendation of the 'dog-welfare' orgs - support is something I don't understand. I'm not sure they do either. I don't completely blame them though, as they are receiving their advice through 'key organisations' NOT ONE of which is dedicated to dog training; dog behaviour; or dog psychology.

I might suggest that your dog, having moved home for a period and then returning (and taking into account also his age) has caused an upset in the hierarchy balance (whatever that balance might have comprised of in the first place). Maybe there were signs of this before you left. Or perhaps there weren't. But I'd suggest that his recent change of abode might have affected that enough to either alter it or tip it further - his way. I agree with suggestions of checking your leadership. Training is one aspect of that. But there are other interactions that occur around the home on a day to day basis - it is what you do and how you go about doing it that is what dogs 'read' from. Because aggression has been exhibited I can't help but recommend you get in the help of a professional for this. Sooner rather than later makes things easier to sort through (for the trainer/behaviourist as well as for the dog and ultimately for you). Hierarchy needs to be checked and if necessary, adjusted first and foremost. If resource guarding remains an issue there are additional things that need to be done as well, for that.

Mandela does this. He has "Flea" and he has "Shrek". They are the main two that he 'knows' the best. Although there is also "ball" and "stick" and "sock". Anything else is pretty much "toy". I can tell him to go get "Flea" and even when the two toys are both together he will discriminate. If he gets Shrek by accident, I tell him "nah .... get Flea" (or vice versa). Flea can be in one spot and Shrek in another. And he can and will discriminate. Although sometimes his short puppy attention span gets in the way and he forgets what he was running into get when he sees a bit of fluff or whatever that I haven't vacuumed up . Or sometimes he'd give me the big flip 'cause he'd rather try to chew my shoelaces undone, or nosey parker into whatever else it appears that I might be doing. All I did was take the opportunity of naming each of the aforementioned toys and repeating their names fairly regularly and frequently whenever he had them and give him some praise for having them. In the very early days when he just didn't have a clue I'd be saying "where's Flea?" and at the same time walking to wherever it was that I knew Flea was. "Oh look, there's Flea" as I bent down to get Flea and then I'd have a bit of play with Mandela and Flea giving him a bit of praise for having found "Flea". One day I was out the back and Mandela was being a prize pest. I told him (with absolutely no expectation) to "go get Flea". To my surprise, he bolted inside and down to the other end of the house, grabbed Flea and brought Flea out. He was about 12 weeks old then - certainly no older. It went on from there (ie that's when I began teaching him names for other toys). Does that help you? Is this what you meant? Or were you looking more for the sort of training you need for trialling?

Don't know about endurance training for dogs but don't the fitness people normally suggest a varied exercise regime for us - so that we're not just toning up the same muscles all the time? There's also something else I can barely recall from my "gym fanatical" days (would love to have that bod back again! ) where muscle development was enhanced by allowing it to rest (not for long periods, just here and there) and THEN resume the usual exercise. I think this latter ties in with the former. I'm sorry it is so vague as I can't quite remember exactly what I was taught back then.

Aaaahh. That's ok AF. I'm relieved to hear there wasn't some Vets out there who were confused with the vaccinations they themselves deliver . I agree with the advice your Vet gave you. Although I loath the annual heartworm injections.

The point is, Corvus, that once neutralisation and training is 'completed' you can allow your dog to explore and enjoy what you might otherwise have regarded as "high value distractions" but they will not be as valued by your dog as you are, which puts you in the position of more effective control (recalls away from distractions when you need to). First teach through neutralisation and training that you hold the 'power' to the valued rewards. You're conversation is with K9 I'm aware, and with respect I invite K9 to correct me where/if I he believes I am wrong in my take on it.

Big Ouch!!!

That's my 'feeling' on the subject too. What a darlin'. I think it's lucky that the dog wasn't put off racing completely by the fall. Didn't look very nice. ETA: I can't predict what the dog will do next time round, however I'm thinking that the momentum of the dogs running in a group will be inclined to keep her to the track. That is unless the 'fall' itself has put her off running in a group at all.