Erny

I have popped in to read your thread from time to time and must admit that "unease" was a thought that first popped into my mind. The above highlighted (by me) section could well be a clue. I hear what you say about the car being full, but the 'experiment' I suggested might at least narrow down WHY the urination at this time is occurring. Just do it a few times by taking him out without all the kids in the car. If he doesn't urinate on those occasions, perhaps we can then make some suggestions that might help for when he is back in the foot well of the car. Will you entertain this idea? Can you?

Haven't read every post but I think you said he lays down in the floor well of the car? Does he pee if he is travelling on the back seat of the car? Perhaps an experiment with this would help, to determine as to whether he is uneasy with his present travelling position.

From me too, Tony

From what I have read siblings can identify that another is related, by scent. Doesn't mean they'll necessarily be thrilled to see each other in each and every case, so please don't assume this.

A trainer who will apply a balance of R+ and P+ and R- and P- as appropriate to the individual dog's training with consideration of temperament being taken into account. Heck no! There is ALWAYS more to learn and room to be better. Always. What brings you to this ponderment, LL?

Stop allowing it. Remove those body parts she is licking and if necessary nudge her away. Simultaneously, do not give her any attention for it. That means no speaking to her; no touching her; no eye contact. I'm trying to imagine what it is you are doing with your hands that she can reach them during this period of "excitement". Is it that you're playing with her? You could : Crate each dog separately for when visitors arrive. Crate one dog - handle/control the other on lead and teach incompatible behaviour such as "sit", as LL suggests. Have one dog outside and one dog in, so that you are able to deal with the matter of 'visitor behaviour' one dog at a time. Don't allow visitors to give your dogs attention whilst they are excited or behaving in any other undesireable manner. Do you take the dogs to training? Having obedience skills "under their hat" will help you use these for the other occasions of visitors. In fact, every time your dog licks you, you would be able to command the dog to drop. That is, if your dog knows that skill in the first place.

More explanation please . Do you mean she doesn't even want to go out the front door/gate? Or do you mean she is walking and then plants the brakes? Is it only spasmodic? IE She'll walk some, then want to stop? This could be a training issue, or it could be through some physical discomfort that has not yet been detected, or it could be something outside that she has become fearful of. Hence the questions. We need to narrow it down.

True, but there are some where dietary deficiency/mal-absorption has been the culprit. Would hate to think this as a 'cause' subsists merely because of assumption that it doesn't exist. Sometimes a simple change of diet (so long as it is a good diet) does the trick.

Whilst eating faeces might not be harmful to the dog, I always first consider whether the cause of it is. Perhaps it has only come about through exploration activities. But one of the first things that I chose to consider is the possibility of the pup/dog not receiving sufficient nutrients from its diet in the first place. Don't know what you're feeding, but it might be worth thinking about. Sometimes I've had people who are feeding good quality kibble that the general dog would do well on but might not be 'right' for their individual dog. A change in diet, perhaps to another good quality brand kibble, would be helpful. Whilst my experience does not cover what I would say to be a "majority" of cases in copraphagia, I can't say I've had a case of copraphagia that's been presented to me where dietary nutritiency has been the issue when their dogs have been fed a well rounded diet which includes BARF.

How long are you waiting outside for her to go?

Devon Meadows?

Ummmm .... ok - so the "flogging" part was example only? Told you I was exhausted (and I really should, and will, go to bed after this post ). And it would seem that in the instance that was witnessed, there is every liklihood that the Club committee are not going to persue for whatever reason. Even if this witness reports it? Or inspite of whether "IT" () reports it? Have I got this right so far? Regardless - it sounds to me more that the Club has a problem at committee level and rather than a "list" to sway the witness, I think the Club committee needs to meet with a view to developing policy on their protocol for handling "abuse complaint" matters. The policy is voted on and in. Then it doesn't matter if one committee person thinks one thing or another something else. The protocol must be observed pursuant to constitutional policy.

I understand what you're saying Anita. But I'm taking words from the OP on face value. IE "flogging" - conjurs pictures for me of someone belting/whipping their dog - not just once. And for something the dog did or didn't do in the ring. I doubt anyone could even imagine that as being remotely connected with "training". If a person won't report for that, is it possible that the description of the event the witness gave has been exaggerated? Not intending to cast aspersions upon your witness, Rom. But in that particular instance, if the account is based in fact and not coloured with emotion, I'm not sure why anyone would be hesitant about reporting it.

Something I don't understand ..... ie the witness' reluctance to report something I presume he/she already thinks was an act of cruelty. Assuming that factual details will be given to an executive committee member to then take to committee level by way of meeting (special or otherwise), isn't it then up to the Club to make the decision on how it shall be dealt with? (And usually I would expect that would be by way of talking with the dog-owner concerned and if found appropriate issuing a warning or, if the actions of the dog-owner were contrived through sheer ignorance, then explanation.) So what is holding back the witness? He/she doesn't have to make the judgement call ..... the responsible members of the Club do. Or is it a case that if it does get reported, the dog-owner in question is going to know who reported it? Is that what is preventing him/her from reporting it? And can you tell me if it is a him or a her so I can stop having to type "him/her" and "his/hers" and "he/she" .

I'm not sure how to answer your question Rom .... cruelty is cruelty. Taken on the face value of the words written, chances are you're right. But just want to point out that tucking away from view wouldn't necessary follow that the person was guilty. May simply be a matter of a person knowing that because of the beliefs of others his/her methodology would not be appreciated and that person may fear alienation from the group as a result. Not sure I can see what you're after here. Are you asking for a list of what things render an action such as you describe (and on the assumption that nothing has been omitted from that description and that descriptive words are written as factual not embellisments) as cruel? ETA: Re-read your post and realised I'd read some stuff the wrong way around. I am completely exhausted so I think I need to re-address this another time. I'm still not sure if my answer/response would be any different or helpful. If the witness believes the incident was uncalled for and cruel, then I guess he/she needs to evaluate what rests most ethically for him/her, and for whose sake. When I'm caught up in a dilemma, I generally push all extra-influences aside and ask myself which decision (in this case, report or don't report) feels the most right in my heart. Still not sure I'm making sense. Think I need to go fix myself some tea and toast .

You can use whatever word you like. I use "quick quick" (much less embarressing when in very public places). But if you've been using the word "toilet" and are happy enough with that, then stick to it. More civilised than calling out "wee wee" or "poo poo" in public anyway. One thing though - avoid saying "Toilet!". If you use the word with exclamation or even loudly chances are you're going to distract your dog from the very thing you want her to do. Use the word quietly and without excitement or emotion. You're only in the "teaching" phase of this part of her training. At this stage she hasn't yet paired the word with the action of going. You are therefore best to avoid giving the "toilet" command before she goes - because if she does not you are only rendering the word as something meaningless to her. Instead, wait for the 'stream' of urine to start and then, without causing distraction, say the "toilet" command. But you do need to say it before she's finished urinating. As her toilet training improves and you are certain that she is about to 'go' you can then begin to use the word just a split second before urination begins. You will then soon be able to use "toilet" as an actual command. Kal used to oblige me with a dry 'squat' if I gave the toilet command when she was already empty. I'm sure she would have rolled her eyes at the same time if she'd been capable .

I disagree here. It's not like they are saying "this is good when you know how to do it". It is more like they are saying that there is no place for "force". And to sell their own theory, they project the assumption that trainers who use force ONLY use force. If people are going to make a comparison between one method -vs- another, IMO they should take in the whole equation and not simply use one smaller part of it (conveniently making it sound very bad) in an attempt to bolster and sell their own views. Which brings me to a further (although far from new) observation, that being that often when the "positive only" advocats debate against any form of physical correction being used upon a dog, they write with a literary style that more often than not comprises of emphasis on frequently applied BIG corrections. Words such as "reefing"; "jerking"; "jabbing" spring to mind. But I'm sorry, this IS taking the matter of "Pack Theory" off topic and was not my intention. Back on subject, I reflect back to my earlier post in relation to the link on "Dominance Theory" and still recognise what I would consider a major flaw (one that subsequently but obscurely impacts the the whole document generally). That is that they have tried to degenerate Dominance theory by highlighting a hypocrasy between on one hand "Dominant aggression" and on the other hand a leader being Calm-Assertive. It certainly reads with hypocritic flavour, but only because, IMO, they have paired the wrong comparison.

I do understand Ness. I had not a very good experience with the first ever chiro I went to (for myself). It was many years before a friend was able to convince me to go to his. (I was always at physio's ..... problem was eased but never seemed to be fixed.) The chiro I now have is excellent and isn't one for persistently trying to convince you that you need multiple visits. Sometimes I do ..... but most often I don't. Same deal as for chiro's for dogs. You gotta find one that you can trust. Goes for everything though, I guess.

Ditto. IMO waiting for anything stymptomatic to appear is indicative that damage has occurred, and may well have been occurring over time. The longer something is wrong, the longer it takes to 'fix' and remain 'fixed'. ............. of course, I don't treat myself to the same luxury and only attend my own (human) chiro when something's wrong symptomatically.

This is possible. There are a couple of differences though and although they don't go to guarantee they'll be used correctly, I think these two things do have a bearing ... The e-collar comes with at least some instruction on how it is to be best used; and The e-collar is not cheap by comparison to other tools, nor is it as easily available. I know I'm generalising and making a sweeping blanket statement here, but I think these TWO things (jointly and severally) make a tool like the e-collar more attractive to mainly those who have some knowledge of dogs. I wonder, if (eg) head-collars (be it "gentle leader"; "halti" etc.) were as expensive as e-collars, whether the average pet dog owner would be as attracted to them as they are. Or would they more carefully consider their purchase and by those very considerations, make an effort to learn about them and their use so as to be able to decide which tool does what, how and why.

Aaah. Ok. Sorry - it's been a long day. And what about even ignoring the dog? People who are anti-aversive in regards to training equipment often don't think about what affect this common "positive only" treatment method can have on the dog at an emotional level. It's not visible to the naked eye either.

Lou - thank you and :D for your post. Informative, educational, sensible and extra-ordinarily clear minded with what is REALLY being said in them ......... and just as often importantly, what is not. Great explanation of what the submissions are really telling us, or sometimes more particularly, what they are wanting us to believe they are saying and how they achieve that.

Pinnacle - I read and then re-read and thought "what is wrong with this picture"? You've expressed an opinion that "e-collars are at the top of the list" for mis-use because they don't draw blood that people can see?

Is there are scientific reason that dictates why high stims need to be used for the purposes of reports such as the ones given? Also, in one of the studies mentioned in that review, it refers to the Teletakt Collar being used. I'm not personally familiar with this collar, but unless it has since been technologically updated by the time of that study, wasn't it a style of collar with a design so that the e-shock (and I'm purposefully using the word "shock" and not 'stim' here) actually went through the dog's neck? IE Not from two closely sited contact points, but from one contact point on one side of the dog's neck to another on the other side? I agree Myszka. I find this surprising too. Save that I guess there is a lot of time and money required for the experimentation to produce a report - and I guess moreso for a report which is from a balanced and unbiased point of view. ETA: Sorry - I posted the above only after I saw that LC has posted above. Mine seems somewhat superflous now (not to mention, "basic" :D), given that what I've said has already been pointed out by LC (plus some ). Now ..... back to reading LC's reply.

Not true. I could bring up a number of comments you've made throughout your post here that are questionable, but I'll keep it simple by just asking you to point out to me, in my first response to yours (post #77), where I was "so hostile" ? :D