Erny

But with many people it's not an easy matter of simply telling them to find "inner strength". You need to give them things to do which has the potential to eventually evolve into the "inner strength" you speak of. And the things you get them to do need to be able to produce improved behaviour in their dog. This in itself can lead to a development of confidence that they CAN do it and is often the beginning of a much happier relationship with their dogs from the perspective of both dog and owner. Otherwise, 4LV, a well written post.

K9Force .... was it suggested by someone that you do an internet consult? Is that what the OP has expected? Genuine question as your post seems to have sprung up out of the blue here. There hasn't been "speculation" from what I can gather .... most if not all have been encouraging the OP to either engage professional help by way of a consult, or return the pup to its breeder for re-homing. Edited for strikethrough ... re-reading, there has been a degree of speculation about what is happening with this pup. It still boils down to the owner seeking and obtaining professional consultation for both the pup and the family as a whole.

Thinking on this, Kelpie-i (took me a while ) I've heard the same thing and I thought that when I obtained the docs/submissions/reports that were made to support the current Victorian legislation going through (ie to ban the use of the prong) that this "mis-use" by tampering would have come up. But ..... nothing. In fact, there is nothing at all from any of the "key organisations" who were elected as consultants and who supported the "use-ban" legislation in amongst the docs I have obtained to evidence their reason for that support. Is there anything documented where this has actually occurred? ..... I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't one of those urban myths that someone dreamt up as a possibility but then threw it in the ring as an "anti-prong" lobbiest and Chinese Whispers took care of it from there.

If what you suspect is correct, there are a few possibilities. Either :- Chopper is barking for attention. If this is the case, you need to investigate how or where his goal is being achieved. Removal of the goal is essential and an anti-bark collar may well be prescribed if ignoring does not achieve results. Chopper is exhibiting separation related behaviour. I don't necessarily mean "Separation Anxiety" in its technical term (although it could be). Some dogs exhibit anxiety in the form of vocalising simply when no-one's around because no-one's around. Some dogs exhibit the behaviour only when a particular person is absent. The latter is SA. The former is lack of independance. Chopper is vocalising due to 'denied access'. This is where the dog 'creates' when it knows the person is there, but it cannot gain access. An independance training program/regime is normally prescribed in the latter two cases. In all cases I prescribe leadership skills (assuming investigation reveals where these might be lacking). And in all of the above cases, reward when the dog is being quiet. If you do employ an anti-bark collar, be sure to get one that works off vibration and not off sound. Otherwise, another dog barking nearby may result in Chopper receiving the stimulation when it was not he who deserved it. Also, be aware that Chopper might not appreciate the proximity of your other dog when he receives the stimulation from the anti-bark (especially the electronic - not because it is severe, but because it is less obvious where the stim came from) and there is a chance of reaction towards your other dog as a result.

How old is your puppy? Don't expect too much too quickly. I teach the dogs I train a "release command". I teach them that they can move out of their commanded position (eg sit; drop; come; heel; etc. etc.) only once they receive their release command from me, or unless I change the command (eg 'sit' to 'heel'). But for a puppy, I keep each exercise short with lots of fun breaks inbetween. I would not be inclined to go from a 'sit' straight into a 'heel' unless both the sit and the heel have been taught separately. And I teach loose lead walking well before I teach heel, which comes later on in training. With me, for young pups, the majority of this period of development is focussed in socialisation. Small spasmodic sections spent in obedience training. Lots of fun in between. ETA: As per ZoeZoom, who posted while I was typing.

In what way "far superior" Kelpie-i ? From what I can see, the major difference is the BD having the "martingale" type action on the chest strap, whereas the SH is simply a harness with a D ring at the front middle of the chest. Or are you talking material quality. The SH appears sturdier ..... although that's only going by the pictures given.

Are you there Frank? Many people have come to you in response to your plea for advice. It would be nice for them to know, by return and by way of courtesy, as to which avenue you have chosen to take to not only keep your children safe from (accidental) harm, but also to help your pup. Whether you have chosen to go the avenue of trainer/behaviourist assistance or returning the pup to its breeder, we all here only wish for the best outcome for all concerned.

Ruthless has asked me to pop on in here ..... I think the first couple of things you need to establish are : Is the complaint issued a genuine one (ie Are your dog/ss really nuisance barking)? If it is, WHICH dog is barking There could be a lot of time spent in your enquiries when there might not even be a problem to deal with. However : Have you spoken to the Ranger to find out some more details? The person who lodged the complaint would have (I expect) had to have given some account of the problem, such as when the barking seems to start (eg. time of day) and for how long. The person lodging the complaint may even have identified something which might have started it off (eg. when people walk past etc. etc. etc.) I think that's your first port of call. From the above information you might gain some idea of how long it is before your dog/s begin barking after you've left. Armed with that knowledge you can then set the situation up. IE Prepare to leave but instead of heading off somewhere, duck around the corner and listen. If you know your dogs' individual barks well enough, you may even be able to identify who the 'culprit' is. That will identify which dog you need to address. An alternative to all of that is to either purchase or hire a 'spy' or 'security' cam ..... This will not only answer all of the above, but if the nuisance barking is not coming from your dogs, you'll also have evidence of that. It's pretty hard to treat a problem unless (a) you know there is a problem and (b) you know which dog is exhibiting the problem. It's pretty hard to address the cause of the issue unless you can know what is triggering the barking behaviour. Armed with this information, it will be just a little bit easier to help you, not only here but also in the event you elect to consult a trainer/behaviourist who may be able to eventuate a conclusion a lot faster than is possible over the net. The latter is recommended, given you've received notification of complaint from the Council, speed is of the essence. But if you cover the above first, you might find you don't need these services if it is that your dogs are not the problem. But - as to your enquiry about anti-bark collars. There are the JetAir collars - these spray a sharp spray of cold compressed air. I prefer them over the Citronella anti-bark collars - in fact I'm not particularly fond of the latter. Contrary to some belief, Citronella is toxic and some dogs can have an adverse reaction to it. In addition, the smell of the Citronella remains on the dog's coat .... well after the barking behaviour ceases. Success rate for the JetAir collars is about 65-70%. Don't quote me, but I think I recall reading that was a higher percentage than that of the Citronella. Can't be certain - so take this latter bit of info with a grain of salt until it can be proven that I remember correctly. There are also the electronic Anti-Bark collars. I believe these are the collars that have the higher liklihood of success in solving barking issues - assuming an anti-bark collar is the appropriate method to address the problem in the first place. There are numerous brands, but the ones I prefer are those that have variable stim level settings. Steve (K9 Force) sells two or three varities and if you found it an appropriate method to address your dog/s barking, I'd recommend you email him for advice and prices. Remember though ..... if the barking (assuming the allegation is proven) is due to something such as anxiety or boredom, addressing the symptom is not going to address the cause, and this may make the issue worse or may serve to manifest itself in other ways. If the barking relates to anxiety, I don't advocate use of anti-bark collars .... particularly in instances where I have not first had opportunity to observe the dog first-hand. Hope the above has been a little bit helpful. Difficult to be specific when we don't even know at this stage if there IS a problem and if there is, with which dog, when or why. So as per above, first thing's first ..... take steps to establish as to whether you really have a problem to deal with or not.

Cazz .... I'm a bit careful about labelling check chains "cruel and inhumane" ..... Used carefully and properly, they don't need to be and I have been able to train many a dog successfully and happily using that tool. It's just that the prong collar has advantages over the check chain in that its application more reliably avoids the physical damage that a check chain CAN cause. And in fairness - if training methods are successful you can wean off from a (eg) check to a flat just as you can from a (eg) prong-collar to a flat.

I agree with what PoodleFan has said above.

This is not anger, Frank. It is a very firm assertion that the problem is likely to have been created by you and that this situation needs to be addressed promptly and appropriately. Nor is this a judgement - there are many people who have made mistakes that has concluded in disasterous outcomes. There are also many people who have made mistakes and taken on board the advice given (ie seek professional help) and have achieved happy endings. We are hoping that this is a situation that can be turned around now - before it is too late and before anything more serious has eventuated. These posts are designed to help you Frank .... but they are written with a note of gravity as we can clearly see the likely potential for disaster, but simultaneously recognise the potential for a happy ending if you take the advice given seriously. For your son's sake and for your dog's sake, we are urging you to take the path towards a happy ending. :D Edited for spelling.

He quite likely had the right temperament, but has been and continues to receive the wrong guidance. Dogs aren't born knowing how us humans want and expect them to interact. As their owners we have the responsibility of teaching them that. Dogs do have an instinct that looks for leadership and recognises it when it is there. They also recognise when it is not. The first component of this family unit that needs training is the human component. With that in hand you will likely gain an understanding of dogs and dog behaviour and be able to sort through this in an effective and productive manner - ie one that your dog will understand and respond favourably to. Seek one-on-one professional help if you are unclear. As whilst you are muddling your way through this even more errors are likely to be made and payment for those mistakes will be rendered by your son and the dog. And by then you might consider it too late for redemption.

Rom - there were lots of submissions made against the then proposed legislation. I have a copy of some of them. They have been brushed aside/painted over. I don't think this was a case of "snuck through" .... I think it was a case of certain people having made up their minds and the beaurocratic protocols were put out simply as a show of having complied with regulatory procedure rules. At least that is very much what it is pointing towards.

OMG!! It gets worse???! From the RIS it seems that : (a) Apart from the RSPCA expressing support for the proposals in the Bill (which cover a wide range of areas, including those related to fish and horses), there is no specific submission/input in relation to its stance (or why) on prong-collars. Only specific input related to electronic devices. (b) No input listed/mentioned on VCA's stance on prong-collars. Only on electronic devices. © No input/listed/mentioned on AAPDT's stance on prong-collars. Only on electronic devices. So the KEY ORGANISATIONS who were consulted for the then proposed ban of use of prong-collars submitted no specific input in relation to that particular piece of equipment, other than the RSPCA whose support was expressed by only that the proposals (over the whole Bill) was "consistent with their own policies". And in the face of many objections coming from some very reputable and reliable and knowledgeable dog organisations, the Bill in relation to the ban on the use of prong-collars was passed !!! I'm astonished, yet somehow I don't think I should be.

Ok - finding out a bit more on this. Turns out that "Whylie's Working Dogs" provided training for farm dogs and their owners and were agents for SmartAid electronic training systems. Their input to the 'discussions' related to e-collars. So shall cross them of the list of "Key Organisations" which would have been received as input towards the prong-collar discussion.

As I work my way (ever so slowly and cumbersomely) through the docs obtained through FOI, I am 'hit' with the marvels of what seems very little consideration towards the benefits of the prong-collar. The "Regulatory Impact Statement" (RIS) put out prior to passing of the bill to ban the use of prong-collars (and introduce numerous other restrictions both relating and not relating to dogs) sets out a list of "Key Organisations" who were consulted with. These "Key Organisations" are listed as : Animal welfare organisations RSPCA Animals Australia (ANZFAS) Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) Dog training organisations Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers Whylie's Working Dogs Other organisations Australian Veterinary Association (Victorian Division) Victorian Canine Association Disclaimer : there are other organisations listed, but these were people such as Innotek - who would have been concerned in relation to the use of electronic devices, and Rodeo and Fish people ..... I've left them out of this list as it does not appear their mention would be relevant to the subject topic. Under a section within the RIS specifically relevant to "the use of ... devices on animals" it states that "discussions were held with representatives of the abovementioned animal welfare organisations, dog training organisation, electronic dog training collar suppliers and other organisations. except the Australian Veterinary Association (Victorian Division) and Animal Liberation Victoria. The latter organisations were contacted by letter and telephone about the proposals but did not take up the offer of further discussion." So although the RIS's list of "Key Organisations" for consultation might look impressive, for the purpose of passing of the Bill to ban the use of prong-collars, it seems the government relied upon comments and opinions of : 1. RSPCA; 2. VCA (although exactly what they were consulted on is not yet apparent to me so I have no knowledge yet as to whether their input related to the use of prong-collars); 3. Animals Australia (ANZFAS); and 4. Whylie's Working Dogs (whoever they were .... because they deregistered their business 10 days after forms were signed off by Bob Cameron MP). All looking considerably bias and without balance to me at this moment.

Also strangely enough, this "organisation" Bob Cameron consulted with (one of only two in the category of "Dog Organisations") was de-registered only TEN DAYS after the beurocratic forms in support of the ban were signed off by Bob Cameron. Could be/Maybe coincidence, but ..... From a legal perspective what constitutes an "organisation"? - Is "Pro-K9" an organisation even though it's just me???

Deelee2 .... I have PM'd you. As I mentioned in the PM, I am concerned about the suggestion that your dog may need medication to assist in remedying its existing problematic behaviour. A "behaviourist Vet" is often very different in skill than a "trainer/behaviuorist" and it would be wise to investigate and be comfortable with that person's skill level before you engage them. This is not to slight your trainer's advice ..... I guess being far removed from your situation as I am, it is impossible to assess first hand. If it were me I would get in contact with Steve @ K9 Force. He is in Sydney and you will find many here who have through his guidance achieved improvement and success in managing their dog's problematic behaviours ..... and in most cases without the use of drugs. I am not opposed to use of drugs in combination with specific training to aid in remedying some situations, but I am not convinced that drugs are necessary in this instance. As I say though ..... I am not there, have not seen and do not know your dog. Also as I mentioned in my first PM to you, the 'tips' I gave to help you sort through this problem were only advised on the basis that any aggression was absent. You are right to avoid dog/dog interaction without supervision of a qualified trainer/behaviourist and to keep your dog on lead until the problem has sought appropriate attention, if you suspect your dog's behaviour may be based in or escalate to aggression. Good luck and stay in touch to let us know how you get on. Oh - and don't despair. Many people have achieved successful outcomes with the right tuition, supervision and advice. Cheers! Erny

Me neither, Angelsun.

Yes - they are a limited slip collar, Cazz. The check chain is unlimited slip.

Faxonand Bear Thank you so much for that. So Wylie's Working Dogs are now a deregistered business? And they were a business based in breeding, not training? Doesn't sound like much 'grunt' upon which to gleen and base opinion for the passing of a legislation. Wonder if Wylie's was a person known to Bob Cameron and/or RSPCA?? "Mates rates" type of thing. I will add the info to my submission. Thanks heaps. Erny

Here's a few links to start you off, Cazz .... Training with the Prong Collar" Article by Suzanne Clothier Prong Collars How to fit a Prong Collar .... Leerburg

Thanks Rom. Leave it with me. It's late now. I'll try it tomorrow.

No - actually they are not. They tend not to damage the fur anywhere near a slip collar, check chain or, again, a head-collar (which often damage the hair across the dog's muzzle, if it doesn't chaff the skin), if at all. Please don't take prong-collars for how they "look". Because they do *look* bad, many people make false assumptions. I know my reaction when I first saw one was to screw up my nose. But on closer investigation and experimentation I found my initial reaction to be unfounded.

You wouldn't be able to do that any more than you can now, Cazz. Under "restricted use" you would be obliged to seek professional/qualified training supervision so that you can learn how to utilise it correctly. Not so for tools such as head-collars; check chains etc. ...... Yours sincerely "You People"