Erny

Love the 2nd photo down, where Xia is holding her little 'handies' out of the road . Glad you all had fun.

Don't mind me ..... just began to think I had read it incorrectly, 'tis all.

Is the thread about the RSPCA's temperament testing of dogs that come into their shelter? I didn't think so, but if so, then I've misunderstood Mark's point of his letter.

Rusky - How do you know this?

What ..... like "live exports" and the such ???? Maybe the impact of doing that would be too great in terms of financial detriment to the Country? Maybe instigating (and by doing so, keeping in the public limelight) these other legislations is far easier to put through Government and but achieves the attention of the general public who believe they are doing great things? Maybe without these actions they'd be under more public pressure to focus on the 'tough stuff'? I don't know, Rom. One can only speculate until they decide to come out and tell us. A night out with a sweaty, ageing and drunk Santa!! Oh crap. "Ho Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha"

Out of curiousity, what's the penalty for "Ho Ho Ho-ing" ????? Yes it does and unfortunately the loudest voice is not always the best one to listen to, yet it is often the only one that is heard.

Yes Shekhina EVERYTHING on YOUR terms. Very clearly so. And give the dogs a job so they can EARN what they receive. You can be as strict and all encompassing with your leadership activities as you see fit and necessary, as you will know your dogs more than I.

I didn't know THAT !!!! I spent our obedience club's Christmas break-up "Ho Ho Ho-ing". None of the kids cried. The new baby of one of the trainers cried when it got passed to me for a 'hold' ..... and I didn't even "Ho Ho Ho" it. Agree, Kelpie-i. Although I see it on a different slant as well. IE That meeting what is "socially acceptable" is more likely to and will more easily win favour - regardless of whether it is correct or not. Yes - cynical ....... but am I wrong?

Moving to a new home environment can often unsettle established heirarchy order. The very important thing is to ensure that YOUR leadership to all dogs can and is recognised. Sometimes it is better to 'tweak' our leadership activities where they can be 'tweaked' - even when before this wasn't necessary - and allow things to settle back, rather than to wait to see if there is likely to be a heirarchy shift amongst our canine companions.

I tend to agree, Rom. However I understand the shelters cannot morally (or legally) re-home dogs who sport potentially injurious behaviours and I also understand (not that it doesn't make me sad) that some dogs are euth'd because their problematic behaviour/s or even their breeding make it unlikely that they will be adopted - and room does need to be made for dogs who are more readily re-homeable. BUT .... I think the point is that the RSPCA's tenticals surpass the walls of its own confines. As such, its philosophies need to be flexible enough to take that into account. As it stands, it's their way or the highway, regardless of whether the dog is in their direct care and under their management or not. And THAT is what makes the RSPCA's stance imbalanced and unfair to dog-owners, dog trainers AND manytimes to dogs themselves.

I spoke of it in my earlier post. Much of its behaviour has developed and escalated due to poorly timed rewards. ETA: And passive punishment (eg. "ahhh's" and "sin-bins") have proven little effect.

Ummm, I have never thought of barkbusters programme as (what I know of it) "balanced training".

RSPCA have made a blanket statement about THEIR TRAINING philosophy TO Mark (knowledgable and experienced trainer). Their training philosphy clearly limits punishment to passive measures only (as stated through and within this thread). I'm not talking ONLY about dogs who come within the 'care' of the RSPCA .... but on its "training philosophy" in general. A philosophy that it PROJECTS onto people who without better knowledge, hang on its every word as a gospel. Their clutches reach far beyond the gates of the walls which dictate the RSPCA shelter boundaries, and affect many dogs who otherwise might not have needed to have ended up in a shelter in the first place. The view you seem to be taking at the moment is ONLY in relation to the re-homeability of dogs that come within the shelter rather than as broadly as what the RSPCA influences with ITS opinions. It's a separate issue and a slippery slope as an argument. Given the contents of my post here, do you still think so? I don't think it's a separate issue nor a slippery sloped argument. But I do believe the RSPCA's argument is one-eyed and blinkered.

My turn to echo Cosmolo's words here. Many of the dogs I'm asked to consult on are the result of ill-timed positive reinforcement. Sure .... take a pup and raise it with well-timed positive training/passive punishment and success is possible - and I agree with that method in those successful cases. But where it has gone wrong for the inexperienced owner and we're requested to fix it, positive physical punishment is not out of the question, IMO, if THAT is what will turn the trick. Only as recently as today I was called out to consult on a dog with aggression to o/dogs and o/people issues - issues that have been developing and occurring over a space of about 1.5 years (the dog is 2yo). Not only that, but this dog was no longer being walked due to the difficulties the owner was having with the dog's behaviour. Within 3/4 hour of working with the dog, it was walking past dogs that it would normally aggress towards, with minimal to no fuss. Sure - the emotional aspect of the problem needs more work and time - nothing can replace those two factors, but the owner has seen and now recognised the benefits and effect of balanced training and in the space of 2 hours that I was with her has developed confidence enough to work with her dog and handle him. Within that same 3/4 hour period I was able to work with the dog without its muzzle. He deferred to me and sat close when asked. I was able to stroke him. The dog was initially on a head-collar, which he hated. But it was the only tool his owner was able to hold him with (mind you, to no good effect as far as behaviour modification was concerned). His body language reflected no such irritations with the check chain (would prefer a different style collar for the dog's sake, but we're not allowed that here in Victoria ). The messages delivered were clear (+P and +R). No shyness from the dog. No cringing from the dog. No lead pulling. Dog minding owner instead of owner minding dog. If it could not have been revealed to the owner that her dog's behaviour could be improved, the dog would continue to remain in its backyard. Its behaviour would have escalated beyond what it already was (escalating aggressive behaviour was already evident, even as recently in the last week) and it's not too difficult to guess where the dog might have ended up eventually. Certainly if this dog landed at the RSPCA or any other similar type shelter, it wouldn't stand a chance for consideration, which brings me to ask the same question as Cosmolo .....

Ok - not picking on Rusky in particular (for that matter, not 'picking' on anyone) ..... but I'm interested to know from those who DO agree with the RSPCA's letter contents ..... RSPCA will pts for behaviours that CANNOT be turned around by method of the passive punishment it speaks of, but which in liklihood (at least for some of those poor dogs) the methods Mark speaks of may well have identified some success sufficiently to allow re-homing. When you consider this, can you really agree with the RSPCA ???

Yes - although they have limited "punishment" to : my highlightFor some dogs and in some situations, "passive" punishment simply doesn't cut it and the dog can care less. IMO the pendulum needs to swing in the centre - however RSPCA's push is to swing it a good way to the "left" (so to speak) and if that doesn't work or if problems associated with it being ineffective, pts. It is clear by their letter to Mark that the RSPCA denies that anything beyond what they have suggested above as "passive" punishment is acceptable - regardless of whether it is well applied by a person of experience and knowledge or not and regardless of liklihood of success.

But there is a point also made in this thread that +R based training CAN actually go wrong for the dog. As it does for me when I see head-collars frequently being used incorrectly. Yet RSPCA refer to this style of equipment as "positive". I see them as carrying bias rather than open and fair mindedness when it comes to their own opinions. And given that so many of the unknowing joe average public hang on their words I think they need to be more careful about what opinions they give and how they give them. Not forgetting Pax, that the RSPCA hold to their opinion REGARDLESS of whether the people they are communicating with have little knowledge and experience in dog training or ALOT of knowledge and experience. I am cautious about what I will advise/explain etc. etc. to people depending on their relationship with their dog and their ability to understand it. As things progress with their dog training, I'm inclined to 'feed a bit more line' so to speak. However, the RSPCA hold their line hard, no matter what. And they work to force their hard line blanket opinion on everyone by pushing through Government legislations. PS. I'm glad you posted Pax. Always good to hear other views. ETA: Was preparing post and in the meantime Cosmolo posted.

Deelee2 ..... I would strongly recommend that you have the tuition first and then apply the training method, rather than "practice" prior to tuition.

There also seems to be a "throw away" attitude to the instincts of our canines. Just to suggest that dogs have been domesticated does not go to follow that basic ancient instincts have not carried through in one shape or form (and in varying degrees to each breed and individual within breed). In the RSPCA's response, it has denied (or ignored to suit its own argument/agenda?) that instinct plays any part in our domesticated dogs' behaviour. ETA: Answers such as "dogs are domesticated" really annoy me. It answers to absolutely nothing in relation to the behaviour of dogs although we are expected to accept it AS an answer.

You removed the cushion cover which in turn exposed him to something with different texture/look. This would have tweaked his curiousity and thus he's done the natural thing .... he's explored it. And now he's found out that there's fun to be had. I find that foam rubber (texture, I presume) is quite inviting and numerous dogs tend to enjoy the simple act of ripping it to shreads. He's done it once. Keep a watchful eye so that you can train him to learn it isn't something you approve of so that hopefully it isn't an activity that becomes habitual. I dog sat some dogs some while back - didn't know they'd learnt this behaviour. I too came home to some destruction that I wasn't expecting (and the taget was foam rubber). Fortunately, it was not high value items for me. But knowledge of it then helped me work against them continuing to think that the behaviour was "ok", and saved other items from destruction. Don't know about others, but I've found the lounge chairs most often destroyed are those that are cushioned with foam rubber. Not to say other styles don't cop a beating now and again ..... but the foam supported ones seem to be favourites.

Hi JillyBean The "fear period" Steve describes falls within the "critical period" of the pup's development (8-16 weeks). In my experience, where pups have received slow, regular, frequent and patient exposure to our worldly things and noises (and in the absence of bad experiences), I have not seen where a pup has all of a sudden become fearful of the things s/he has been gently socialised to. However, I have heard/read that low thresholds for fear may persist even though early socialisation has been provided appropriately ..... and that the innate fear responses to things such as loud noises and sudden movement can appear spontaneously early in the dog's life or as the dog matures. Whichever the reason for it, I'd still be inclined to follow what I've mentioned in my earlier post ... Erny: I'd be inclined to introduce drive training (if you haven't already) and use that drive training whilst working just behind your pup's reaction threshold to the 'aversive' stimuli. Playing ball and such like in a similar way is also something that can assist. In otherwords, use your pup's drives to effect a degree of "sensory narrowing" (which is where the other senses tend to reduce) and to keep her mind a bit away from what bothers her. You don't want her completely oblivious to the stimuli that bothers her, or very little to no learning would occur, although you can begin this way and gradually and minutely increase intensity of exposure, finishing the "drive" activities back away from the aversive stimuli. You could use the drive training to promote more confident walking when outside your yard too, although work up to this a bit incrementally (eg I wouldn't immediately begin working outside my yard if the dog was still considerably fearful within the boundaries of the front yard). You don't want to over push the dog, but you do want to ease out the boundaries of her comfort zone little bit by little bit .... progressively but over time.

Pomquest ..... for what it is worth, I never think "Active Manuka Honey" is a waste of time nor effort. Dogs love it - it is therefore generally easy to administer. Purchase from a health food shop - it isn't cheap (about $25.00 for quite a small jar), but purchasing a cheap variety generally won't give you the immune system healing properties that the good quality stuff does. I don't know about other holistic remedies that might be available, so not answering to that question. But I'm quite confident that the AMH won't cause any harm - only good. Worth a try? PS .... you can take some too - spread it on your toast or whatever. Won't hurt towards keeping YOUR strength up whilst you're having to deal with this. Good luck.

Jillybean ..... I know 2nd fear impact period can occur at quite differing times and remain for differing lengths of time depending on breed and individual within breeds, (it is generally between the age of 6-14 months) but it does seem quite early for a dog to go through second fear impact period at only 17 weeks of age, IMO. For this reason I'd be inclined to run a background check on what experiences she has had by way of socialisation to the type of "worldly" things you've spoken of here and how broad have those experiences been? Also, what have your reactions so far been towards her since she's begun to exhibit the fear behaviour? Having said and asked that though, based solely on your post content it does 'sound' like 2nd fear impact period (even if it is early). Regardless of the cause though, and to answer your question "what do I do?", certainly avoid doing anything that might possibly be perceived by her as reinforcement for the fear behaviour. Be her leader. Endeavour to reward confident behaviour. Avoid over-facing her to the things she finds 'scarey' ...... very low intensity exposure is the order of the day and I'd suggest you approach all things that way - especially new/novel experiences. Mind your body language - don't make it appear that you are fussed. ETA: If I ever find myself in a position with a dog ..... a position that for the dog's sake, I'd rather not be in, one of the things I tend to focus on is simply keep the dog MOVING - give the dog a job to do and work as a team doing it. If the dog is permitted to become still, it will have more opportunity to become focussed on the stimulus that unnerves him/her, rendering it more traumatic an experience than it otherwise might need to be. ETA: Confidence building exercises such as obedience (set up for 'wins') and tricks can also help.

Hi Budhi .... no details have been set as yet but we will announce and let everyone know once they are. Are you wanting the private consult with Steve? I believe time will be tight for him but perhaps email him? If you're wanting a private consult earlier than the seminar/workshop date, feel free to email me with details of the issues you're having with Budhi. Cheers! Erny

Now Oonga!!! I was keeping that a secret. Now the word is out we will be inundated to beyond saturation point!!! Mandatory equipment to bring will be pink tights. ;) ETA: You idiot