Erny

The problem with removing the food/bowl if puppy growls is that it reinforces the reason for her being aggressive about it in the first place IE she is fearful that she is going to lose this valuable resource.

In answer to the above, refer to the first para on page 5 of the link NW put up. It reads :- "While sniffing a scent source on a gound plane, the orientation of the dog's nose is such that the expired air jets are directed to the rear and sides along the ground plane. The turbulent mixing of these jets entrains the surrounding air, drawing an air current toward the nostrils from perhaps several cm ahead along the ground plane. This extends the aerodynamic "reach" of the inspiratory olfaction phase and helps, in some scenarios, to draw scents forth from concealed locations. It is a form of aerodynamic ejector or inducer." If you read further it goes on to talk about how the angle the dog puts its nose to the area being 'scented'. The dog might go beyond the direct source of the scent, but the jet of air caused by exhalation stirs the scent up so that it is 'caught' by the dog so the dog can re-direct to the source of the scent. Not forgetting that 'sniffing' is a very fast, repetative and ongoing conscious activity. Well - that's my interpretation of it, anyway. I certainly don't have any documented matter to refer to (at this moment) on this, so my own thoughts on this are that even when panting, the dog can still 'sniff'. Once a scent of particular interest is detected, I've found the dog will pause in its panting to better focus on locating the source of the scent. As I said, this is my own thoughts/guess. Sardog is probably the best one to ask on this score. Or Lablover? ETA: Sorry - there was a delay in me posting this already formatted post and I see Poodlesplus has already made reference to part of what I've said. ETA: Thanks again NaturallyWild. Haven't fully read the paper you provided a link to, but what I have read has been quite informative.

Have had a few people notice chafing - at least one of those was with the Sporn harness ....... so don't know what they did with the "Sherpa" covering?

I agree with Tony. Set the pup up to 'win' every time. (ie avoid re-calling unless you know it will occur). By what you've written L&L, you're only going to be teaching the pup it's ok to ignore the re-call when it suits.

If you are chosing to go with a Head Collar - as to which brand depends on which one fits your dog the best. Each brand comes with a variation to design, so this needs to be taken into account. Personally, I'd be inclined to seek the help of a trainer who will most likely be able to help you train for that loose lead. But if having a Head Collar will mean more interaction and walks with your dog then that at least is a place to start, if you wish. It is extremely important that you fit the head collar (whichever one you buy) correctly to the dog and also extremely important that you use it properly and with awareness to the possible physical risks to your dog if you don't. If you're not sure about this, then once again I'd recommend you engage the services of someone who can show you them and also explain the differences between them and correct use. Perhaps it would be good if you engaged a trainer who has a broad knowledge of many of the different available equipment and their proper use. He/she would be able to demonstrate and explain all of them to you and you would then be able to make a clearer decision as to what is best for your dog and for you. I'm not a fan of harnesses for training, Sporn or otherwise. However you do need to watch for any chaffing by any harness you use and I understand the 'no-pull' harness is not designed for running dogs (because of the inclination to chaf).

PMing you, Varicool ..........................

Thanks for the link NW. Have printed it out to read through later. And thanks for putting up the thread LL. I enjoy looking into stuff like this - but my googling never seems to lead me to very much. Must all be in the wrist action . Of course - still interested to know if there are any books/more links on the subject, if anyone can point me in the right direction. Cheers! Erny

That's interesting NW. Must admit I didn't really know what those side slits (there must be a name for them?) were for. Only thing I could think of at the time was for the dog to have greater capability of drawing in scent from greater angles and perhaps some relationship with brain computation as to sourcing the direction of the scent. Just my thoughts though - completely unfounded and nothing to do with anything previously written. So, in what you've read, does it mean kind of like the way Aborigines (and others who sport the talent) use the digereedoo (sp?) IE breathing in and breathing out at the same time. Or like those who play the harmonica? Except we tend to use throat and nose, I think. But in the dog's case air that is "sniffed" (as opposed to breathed, which would travel through to the lungs) comes in via the main of the nostril and escapes through the slit, leaving the scent molecules behind in the scent sensitive mucous membrane ???? Or have I completely misunderstood? :rolleyes: If anyone has a book or books which dedicates a good amount to the mechanics of dog's sniffing and scenting, I'd appreciate knowing which they are. With what I've managed to learn of it has come from various snippets (some with bare reference to it, others only slightly more) from various books.

That's ok ..... I'll blame my post on feeling a bit thick-headed. I realised after I re-read that you would mean sharing amongst your own dog.

Are you talking about the sharing of training toys within the 'same' dog pack family? When I use training toys with the dogs I work with, I wash them before using them with another dog in another family - but that's just for hygiene purposes. So I guess that's not what you mean?

Sounds to me as if there is a lot about what Sam wants to do, and not much about what you want to do. I'd suggest training and use the moments when Sam is behaving to allow him to meet and greet by way of reward.

Would you suggest that a dog who is hypervigilant; unrelaxed when its pack leaves the house; and exhibiting tension towards visitors is "happy"? And think further of the neurological affect longterm stress can have on the dog. That is not merely a "now" thing. Discussing on the loose assumption that the things you have listed are "boundaries/limitation" (and I debate that point in the next para) IMO that's not a case of "too many limitations" but perhaps more a case of the wrong limitations. As to whether they were wrong or not would be the subject of another discussion for another thread. Much would depend on what the dog was doing at the time and what its problematic behaviour was and of course, the cause of it. Although I still fail to see how not being allowed on the couch; bed etc. can be recognised as a limitation that could have inclement affect on a dog. In addition and moreover, one needs to take into account the good interactions that are occuring in between the times of the 'boundaries/limitations' that have been set. ETA: #4 ... "only feed dry food" - have no idea what bearing that is supposed to have on anything as far as it relates to "pack theory" . The other thing about that list is that all save for numbers 4 & 5 (with a question mark towards number 1 and possibly 2) sound more like punishments, rather than "boundaries/limitations" for the dog to observe in its day to day life. On the list you've given and without understanding the circumstances more fully I would not suggest this to be any good cause to shun general "leadership" activities as are presently and commonly known. That would be an "argument" (for want of better word) on "good trainer -vs- bad trainer" (again, for want of better words). I don't see this as anywhere near reflective of the effects/affects of application of boundaries/limitations for a dog to observe (eg. not on couch; not on bed; earning its rewards etc. etc.) There is some truth in this. Although explanation as to "why" certain procedures/practices are to be followed is good for the dog owner to know and have some basic awareness of. This aids towards the confidence of the owner which otherwise may have been lacking - lacking confidence is not a happy state for owner nor dog. I don't think iit's a matter of teaching them all we have learnt over the years - but an explanation of the hypothesis doesn't take much to hear and grasp. As mentioned - your examples seem to comprise of "reactionary treatments" (ie punishment/s) in relation to specific behaviours. The good ol' water squirt bottle has been proven very positively instrumental in assisting with the decisting of numerous varied unwanted behaviours including aggression, coupled of course where relevant with the implementation of other behaviour modification methods such as we have been discussing in this thread (ie leadership/dominance/alpha etc. etc. etc.). Pinnacle : (My highlights) This was in your post in response to ARF Muttley above, but it really did perk my interest so hope you don't mind me bringing it in here. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "it's the lack of human emotions that puts dogs in pounds" and how you come to that conclusion? ETA - general comment to all : "Outdated" is a word I generally hear from people (trainers, behaviourists) who don't agree with what has been in "vogue" (can't think of a more appropriate word at the moment, although I know there is one) for a considerable period of time. This applies to training equipment as well as to the trialled and tested "leadership" activities that we speak of here. What I usually don't hear is WHY they are being refuted other than being "outdated". What's the new "theory", what does it comprise of and why do people think it works overall and why do they see it as more beneficial than what has been known and tried (and proven with successes) over the decades? Just because something is "old" doesn't (well .... it shouldn't) mean it is no good. To simply suggest something is "outdated" does not constitute good reason to divert away from it. Explanations please .....................

Ah aaaahhhh!!!! Glad that you've managed to work out the trigger for your dog's anxiety. That works a good way towards being able to resolve the problem. I knew that there was a 'pattern' somewhere ..... but it isn't always something immediately obvious to us and can take a while to determine, particularly when it relates to natural elements ...... we have to wait for them to occur and then duley note them. Ok - is the wind rattling anything within the kennel, or is it merely the sound of the wind through the trees etc.? That is one more thing that definately needs to be investigated. Naturally, if the wind is able to cause something within the kennel construction to creak; rattle etc., it ideally needs to be eliminated (eg by tightening). Without knowing the design of your dog's kennel run, can it be further 'weather proofed' to reduce the effect of the wind (both in noise and perhaps that your dog feels it)? There are some things that you can try in an attempt to 'calm' your dog in the presence of wind, but before I go into those, would you mind coming back to me with answers to the above? Your answers may (or may not ) influence my further response/s to you. In the meantime - if/when it is windy, I'd be inclined to keep her inside. Anxiety breeds anxiety. Can you do that? It would be better than going out there to comfort her, as that does run a very real risk of reinforcing her anxious behaviour.

Completely agree that these factors (ie wrong breed for lifestyle/living) have an impact in some people/dog combinations. But don't know what you mean by "force someone" . Giving a plan for people to follow (and it goes without saying that the 'plan' comprises of actions that are safe and as non-confrontational as to preclude presentation of a challenge and hence risk of serious retaliation by the dog) can actually help people to unconsciously develop the assertiveness they otherwise lack through the sheer confidence of what they are doing and the good results they begin to recognise as being achieved. Sorry - given that there was no suggestion that anything needed to be done, I (obviously wrongly) deduced that you might have been implying exactly that. My mistake. What I said was : "It is not bad for a dog to express dominance. But it is deleterious for us to not be aware of it, to ignore it and not take those usual fairly early and easy steps to impress upon these young doggy minds that there is no room for it, given that the status of "leader" has been (and continues to be) filled." The whole should be read in this case, not the part. Perhaps I am wrong, but I see this as self explanatory. Sorry - I've had to break up these points of your sentences due to "quotation limitations" within a post. I agree that many dogs are happy to be followers ..... provided they perceive leadership, without which there is nothing to follow. What do you regard as "too many limitations"? I'm getting the impression you might think that commonly known limitations such as "not on couch"; "not on human beds" etc. would stifle the dog to the point of retaliation later? I genuinely not sure what you are alluding to in this. It wasn't that I intended to suggest they aren't natural growth stages (in fact I think if you reflect, you'll see that I have agreed that they are). But when said without follow-up explanation it can illude people to think that you mean the dog will grow out of it (not something that is uncommonly advised by some, either). That's what I meant. Ok Pinnacle ..... One example : the little dog (eg. Maltese x). Owners don't have high expectations by many people's standards. Just want "sit". Dog generally complies. Owners don't really take the dog to many places, nor allow off lead when they do/might, so for them the dog is deemed 'compliant'. At home - no rules; no limitations. Dog is permitted complete freedom. During a part of the day the owners work. Because the dog barks excessively when alone, it is housed inside so as to not disturb the neighbours. No complaints from neighbours - owners happy. When visitors come, the dog is anxious and exhibits the anxiety by pacing around. There's no growling, but the dog - who is in conflict between flight and approach .... but errs towards approach .... tends to hesitantly come nearer to sniff, but then quickly darts away. Owners think this is cute and kind of funny. They love their dog. They pick it up and cuddle it and laugh. I don't think that's a happy dog. But for its owners "it works for them". I'd be interested in your thoughts given the purpose for which you asked for explanation. Well actually, they are the dictionary definition of "leadership" - or is that also a word that conjurs for you "criminals who need to be locked up and have the key thrown away"? Oh ......

Good question LL. Of the little that I know about the 'mechanics' of dogs in the action of scenting, I understand that air that is "sniffed" 'rests' in the nasal chambers and this allows smell molecules to remain there and to accumulate on a mucous layer containing millions of odour sensitive cilia. There is also the "subethmoidal shelf" where scent is maintained and accumulated even after it has been passed on to the this nasal membrane lining. I would expect this is why exhalation would have little impedance to the dog's ability to scent. ETA: There is also a "vomeronasal organ" which is a pouch lined with receptor cells and which is located above the roof of the dog's mouth behind the incisors. (Can't say I've seen it but have read of it.) I've read different things about the function/purpose of this 'organ' and so it seems there is some uncertainty of it, but apparently it is more involved in the unconsious perception of sex hormones, rather than in the conscious appreciation of smells. Not sure in this, but if it does involve other scent as well, then I wonder if taste has a bearing/influence on scent as well, via this 'organ' and further enhancing dogs' extraordinary scenting talent. ETA: Hope you are feeling better.

I agree that it sounds like Canine Cough. Doesn't sound like hypothyroidism. And hyperthyroidism is rare in dogs. Either way, I'm sure you'll find out once you've been to the Vet. Hope it's a simple health issue that is easily treated and has a swift recovery.

Selecting this sentence only because it serves the purpose of a point I would like to make. And that is that "dominance" seems to carry the stigma of a dirty word. I agree that there are natural growth stages, but the nature of those same growth stages is also often about exploration and testing of its place within the pack. Dominance is not a bad word and is often a very relevant one. It is not bad for a dog to express dominance. But it is deleterious for us to not be aware of it, to ignore it and not take those usual fairly early and easy steps to impress upon these young doggy minds that there is no room for it, given that the status of "leader" has been (and continues to be) filled. To suggest to people that these are "natural growth stages" IMO can leave a novice person interpreting to mean the dog will grow out of it. That's not a good nor wise perception to even inadvertently leave a person who otherwise wouldn't know with. In/during those times, I believe it is good to "tighten the reins". I agree here. In fact, in my mind, I question ANY right that we have - even as leaders - to venture near and/or remove food/objects from a dog. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and so it stands for the wild pack dog law too. BUT - the dilemma is that we MUST for the dog's sake and sometimes for our own, be able to remove an item/food from its mouth. So what we are doing must be something that the dog is accustomed to, but it is in opposition to "dog law" - therefore needs to be approached with careful consideration/planning and foreward thinking. I would agree with this if we were talking "aggression". But if "dominance" means "having control; influence; governing; ruling" then I see quite a lot in many varying degrees - from subtle to obvious. However, I agree that many behaviours are simply 'learnt' by way of inadvertent reinforcement. How they developed in the first place for them to have been able to be inadvertently reinforced may well have been through the early developmental (ie "natural growth") stages. But the continuation of a "dominant" behaviour here and a "dominant" behaviour there may not necessarily always be dominant assertion for heirarchy status by the dog. The problem is though that it can lead to that occurring. Not to argue directly with you Pinnacle - it's just that your post raised some points I felt worth discussing. ETA: The pack "theory" ie the things commonly prescribed to those whose dogs do exhibit problematic (to the dog and/or the owner) behaviour is designed along lines as closely as possible to what we know of or see in the wild pack. Eg. Leader's right to eat first; right of space; right of way; etc. How precisely these individual acts are perceived by the individual dog is only something we would know if we could literally read the dog's individual thoughts. If only ..................

I think that first some terminology needs to be clarified. I have always regarded the terms "Alpha" or "Top Dog" to simply mean being a leader ..... being the one who governs behaviour. For me it does not conjure up images of strong, big and physical maneouvers of the dog. But because the words "Alpha" or "Top Dog" do conjure these images to many people (even though IMO this should not be the case), I have changed from using those words to using words such as "pack leader" or "leader". I also do NOT think that the common things pronounced as part of leadership programs (eg not on beds, couches etc) are "a lot of rubbish" either. I have seen first hand, and you can even read here on DOL, where this one thing IE not allowing a dog on the bed, has made a beneficial difference in the behaviour of SOME dogs. However ................... I regard a leadership program which comprises of these actions on perhaps a different plane and a different level than many seem to express appreciation for. Foremostly I believe that it is doing the dog ...... ANY dog a huge favour for it to be able to perceive its owner as "leader" (or "Alpha"). Without this perception, our human daily lives and commitments cause conflict to a dog's role as "Alpha". By way of clarification and example ....... A dog who perceives itself as "Alpha" certainly adopts (by nature) the privileges that go with that role. But it also adopts the responsibility of things such as guarding and protecting ITS pack. A good deal of stress and conflict is placed on the dog when it is precluded from observing its role (that we have inadvertently imposed on it) by us leaving the pack (eg going to work) and confining/preventing the dog from fulfilling this important "job". I believe that MUCH of dog's issues develop from the sense of "Alpha" that we've given it and that this occurs (in general) as a result of not having set limitations; not being assertive (perhaps because of nature or by design); and not being consistent in our expectations. Now - for the dog owner who has a dog/s who do not exhibit problematic behaviours and who are not stressed animals ..... chances are that is because their owners possess a natural assertiveness. Dogs not only "observe" this, but also "sense" it. But there are people to whom this 'talent' is not natural to them, so they need to learn it. But how do you teach someone to simply be "assertive" when that is NOT their nature? Natural assertiveness comes from within rather than without, IMO. The beginnings of teaching people this is by firstly getting them to change their ways with their dog/s. And this involves not only setting limitations but also in certain ways and more subtly, to altering their perception of their dog. So, programs such as "not on couch", "not on beds" etc. is a start. It is a way of training people to set limitations and to be consistent with them. It is a subtle way of altering their own perception of what a dog is and what IT needs. They are 'tangible' things that people can see and understand. They may not realise it, but they are 'learning' to be assertive simply by the fact that they are beginning to govern their dog's actions - and that is one major component of being a "leader", being "Alpha" ........... being calmly and firmly assertive. And when people fairly quickly begin to recognise the beneficial effects their changes have made, they are encouraged. And with that encouragement, confidence. And with that confidence, "natural assertiveness" has a chance to develop. On another angle, I hear people tell me that they don't have any problems with their dog, so they don't need to follow any "leadership" program (so to speak). This can often be the truth. But sometimes it is a case where these people are looking at it from THEIR point of view, and not the dog's. They (the people) may not be concerned about some of the behaviours their dog is exhibiting, but that does not always go to follow that no problems FOR THE DOG exist. And it would be nice if what they do could be simply for the dog to be the best that it can be. I do agree that following "leadership programs" as we commonly know them can be harmful in certain circumstances. Certain things can give rise to challenge from a dog when it recognises its leadership is in question. And this is another reason why advice of "what to do" over the internet is not recommended. These "programs" can be tailored to suit the dog's perception of its status and how intensly it might be inclined to protect that status. So, the basic "things" that people do MIGHT not be seen by some as bearing any relevance to a dog's behaviour or perception of leadership, but I see it differently. I see it as something that people who don't know or find it too difficult to comprehend how, to at least begin to be and do something else. And so begins the ball to roll in a different direction ...... ETA: By not having dogs on beds, couches etc. also by its very action can serve to tone down, to reduce, the amount of affection we continually feed our dogs. Humans are overboard (generally, not specifically speaking) in heaping on affection in over abundance. Dogs need affection, sure. But they need it the least of all. Many people don't or won't recognise the imbalance of affection they give their dogs in comparison to exercise (physical and mental).

Yeah I know!! Sent an email response. Will send another now.

Tommy ..... your boy looks lovely! For this issue of aggression, it is pretty obvious you are aware that the most likely cause is your dog's own "fear" of being attacked again. Your dog needs to be desensitised to the presence of other dogs, and to be properly and wisely shown that other dogs are not there to hurt him. This takes a controlled environment and also instruction by a professional experienced in this field of behaviour problem solving. The behaviourist should be able to instruct you not only on the best method for your dog but also provide tuition on your timing of reward amongst other things. Aggression ............. for any reason ............... is not something you deal with over the internet or via a book. I highly recommend you seek the services of a reputable behaviourist to help you out. The longer you leave it, the more ingrained your dog's behaviour will become, and the more difficult it will be to remedy or at the very least, manage. So my recommendation is that you act now. I don't know if you're located near me, but if you do let us know where you are located, we might be able to recommend someone to you.

Seeking the help of a trainer can reveal some techniques that you may not have already tried. I agree though .... the more prior 'learnt' behaviour has taught the dog it doesn't have to come back (or that there is nothing especially that would necessitate it making the decision to do so), the more difficult/longer re-training can be. But sometimes people can be pleasantly surprised when they see that the impossible might actually be possible. I agree with you though .............. unless you have that reliable recall, the dog (and everyone else) is better off on lead.

I believe they use them themselves ......

Haven't heard this one either and cannot for the life of me figure what purpose this would serve. Admittedly, nothing much would surprise me when it comes to the RSPCA and the things it seeks to keep "banning", but seriously think even the unknowing general public would consider this idea somewhat loopy? I wonder if it is targetting certain training groups ...... and maybe this is where you've heard the rumour?

There is a fee/cost for the info I have applied to get from the DPI. But the stories from others is to signify support for the change in legislation and to bear an explanation of how people (and their dogs) have benefited from the prong. These stories, as well as reference to and dissection of the info that was initially submitted to the DPI and utilised in favour of the ban, will all make up a good part of the submission. Well ..... that's my plan, anyway. Any help is useful. The problematic side with many (not all, mind) Vets is they often don't understand how the prong collar works or why and therefore their opinion may not be based on knowledgeable use. BUT if they do have access to any documentary evidence of things such as physical damage to the dog via PROPER use of the prong (as you know ANY piece of equipment NOT used properly can cause damage) then I'd certainly appreciate it if they could provide the same or at least a link to it.