Erny

Thank you Cordelia. Your "slant" on the interpretation does help. Not to mention the conversation Myszka and I have just had where Myszka has explained in similar terms. I did take these sorts of comments personally and was feeling the "guilt" of the dog's death (assuming it is now ) but resented the perceived suggestion that "we" should do so knowing and understanding that it is doubtful anything I or anyone else could have reasonably done or offered (regardless of timing) would have made any difference. The decision and the responsibility that comes with it, rests with the dogs' owners. All anyone can do is let people know that help is available. At the end, it is up to them as to whether they take up on that or not. Your explanation (coupled with my private conversation with Myszka) has quelled my stirring emotions in this matter and I trust it will do the same for others who also may have felt the "bone" was being pointed at them. Thanks. Erny searches for the "peace" emoticon

Certainly NOT. Especially that help was offered. Just a little bit late, thats all. Pls dont try to read into something that isnt there. I'm sorry if I am mis-reading, Myszka, but that is how it is very much sounding to me. I am not doing so on purpose.

It's not as lucrative as you might suggest, Myszka. In fact criticism I've received for NOT giving FREE advice has only ensued AFTER I STARTED giving FREE advice. It seems that is what most (albeit save for a select couple) now EXPECT. What is the point promoting to a group where the "expertise" is always given away for free? ........ except our own satisfaction and relief for the dog/person concerned, and that's only because we do care. Unfortunately, "caring" doesn't pay all the bills. Again Myszka - it seems that the "flag of blame" is being waved at others. By the sounds of it, this dog was not going to receive a reprieve regardless. And I doubt what was offered or when it was offered would have made the slightest difference either. Regardless, SOME effort would be required by the dog's owners and by all appearances one party in that equation had already made the final decision.

Myszka ..... the only person/people who bore responsibility to "do anything" were the dogs' owners. Whether your post was directed to Cosmolo, myself or any other trainer/behaviourist is moot. No-one on the DOL forum is under any obligation (either morally or otherwise) to "DO" anything. Are you suggesting otherwise? If you are, then I suggest you are outside your right to do so. Note that advice was given - just wasn't taken up. If the dog is indeed now dead, that is not the responsibility of anyone other than the dogs' owners and I do not believe the fact should be flagged around as if the people on DOL had any bearing on that responsibility.

Hi Kelpie-i ;) I've contemplated that too, at times. K9 Force: I've backed off some, like you, K9. Oh ..... and K9, you're not alone in copping abuse when posting content that is contrary to the strong (and unproved by individual consultation) opinions of others. ETA: Mind you, there are those others who genuinely appreciate efforts (as I do of others who have helped me in forums such as "Health" and the like and who were of enormous assistance when I needed it with my sick girl) .... I guess it is knowing there are those sort of people out there that keeps me going. :p

Hi Kirty. Yes. Sad. But even asking for advice as to whether he is rehomeable demands a behaviourist consultation. The only behaviourist who can answer that question honestly and with regards to safety issues, is the behaviourist who did or does the consult. Whether this dog's owners did the right thing by all (including the dog) or not will probably now always remain to be seen. But at least you attempted to do something to assist the dog. At the end of the day, though, owners' co-operation is required and where a person's mind is "already made up" makes it difficult to sort anything out. ETA: Kirty - my post (above) is not directed at you as I know you did not expect free consultations. It is only brought up as a result of the insult delivered by a number when free behaviour advice was proferred.

With reference to Cosmolo's most recent post (above) .... I agree. Just have a look at the hundreds of threads in training where professional trainers have given advice ... for FREE. And that's only what you SEE HERE. There are countless communications made direct by myself and others to OP's by way of PM's that are not visible. Not to mention other "freebies" for people who aren't even DOL members/participants ;). My last post on the thread that was deleted was suggesting that it would be lovely if I could expect AND RECEIVE a FREE Landscaping Service, or FREE licensed plumber service, or FREE qualified electrician service the same way trainers/behaviourists are expected to apply their expertise for free. No ..... we don't HAVE to respond to posts, but we do because we CARE for the dog and the dog's owner (after all, they both go hand in hand). The abuse that was dished out and disdainful comments made and/or alluded to in that thread was uncalled for and IMO FAR from helpful to any dog or person - both the ones who were the subject of that thread and others who will in all liklihood follow it. If anyone out there is a knowledgeable and reputable landscaper by trade, I don't mind if I don't like the way you might speak. Nor will I go out of my way to misinterpret it. If you'll do my landscaping for free, that is ........................ :p

No, no news there, Kelpie-i. That's the first bit of info we need. Otherwise, even cross-posting here (even though with the best of intentions) is futile.

That's what my initial query here was alluding to, Myszka. But what is your point of .... :D That we (ie trainer/behaviourists) took too long to say we'll do it for free? No cynicism in my tone intended, but a genuine question as to what you're alluding to by your statement above?

I may have missed reading a post made, but I see she was advised by the OP to contact Debbie Calnon (Delta). Did the owner of the dog do that already? What was the outcome there? What is the OP's location?

:D Well worded post, Cosmolo and totally agree. It puts you off trying to help out for free over the net and very discouraging to add qualified thoughts to the thread for the benefit of the OP and others who seek to learn from it.

I think Myszka that it is pretty clear what a trainer/behaviourist is going to advise ..... it's already been said in that thread. IE Engage a professional trainer/behaviourist. Have blood and physiological tests done by adequately qualified Vet to determine/rule out physical/neurological disorder. Even if the dog still ends up being PTS, at least the owners will be more well advised and should the behaviour exhibited be the consequence of owner ignorance (albeit innocent), at least they will be the wiser for the next dog they get and have less chance of making the same errors. Do we know if the dog's behaviour is (in whole or in part) the consequence of the owners' error/s? No. And this will never be determined or learnt in the absence of proper professional consultation. And all of this may be futile if the dog has already been pts.

Ditto what Greytmate said. And the sad part is, if the dog bites it is the one who usually pays dearly for it. I'm not suggesting it is an easy thing (especially around the age your daughter is ..... I remember becoming a little 'rebellious' around those years too) but setting guidelines for kids is just as important as it is for dogs. In fact, I think part of the reason both have periods where they 'test' you is because they WANT and NEED (albeit sub-consciously) you to show yourself/prove yourself as the capable leader that you are.

Hi Dogdude. I apologise that I am not wording myself very well. Might I be excused by the fact that the Retrieving Trial world is very new to me. I've seen some very good demonstrations as well as having had a number of opportunities to watch dogs being trained in this regime. But that is the extent of my 'experience' in that particular application. So no, I don't trial. Nor do I trial obedience. As far as hard work leading up to trials and the "world" of competition is concerned (and sometimes the heartache when things don't go right on the day), I am familiar, having competed for quite some time in equestrian eventing and dressage. When we speak of dogs, my personal interpretation of: "Obedience" : A discipline in which the canine learns to 'perform' to high standard of reliability under a very broad spectrum of every day distractions that form part of the lives of human society. "Sport" : A demonstration of performance ability. (ie Not necessarily "performance reliability") My interpretation is "loose" and is not designed to inflame. Nor is it intended to sound cynical (which it may well do, given the loss of tone in the written word). But I do see and hear of many "obedience triallers" who work for a very high and polished performance in the ring, but do not or cannot (time restraints? practicalities?) aim for such standards outside of the ring. So, I regard "sport" as a performance that within that environment (for a good part at least) is not a necessity in life. I regard "obedience" as a performance without which our dogs would not be tolerated by us, by our neighbours, by the community or even (eventually) the eyes of the law. Not to mention the injurious potential to the dogs themselves. I think that would be an excellent move, DD. I'll look forward to reading on it when you create it. I trust I have explained myself more clearly to all and sundry. My mind is thinking "is it the BEST dog if FR (of the more aversive nature ..... and that's a generalised statement if ever I heard one!) is the only reason the dog "made it"? Or, is the BEST dog the dog that was able to do the (in this case) retrieve by virtue of its natural instincts only? (This is STILL not worded quite the way I wish ..... I hope my intended meaning is clear enough.) I guess part of the answer to that is whether the "trained" dog is then performing because he seeks drive satisfaction, or whether he is doing so because he's feels from an outside influence that he MUST. ETA: CJ. I think I might have guessed at who you might be and if I'm thinking correctly (and having used my limited powers of deduction ) then I am compelled to congratulate you on your fine breeding. Of course, I don't wish to detract from the fine training that has also been instilled to achieve the high standard your bred-dog exhibits in his line of work. But it helps greatly that the right "ingredients" were there to begin with. ;) A fine 'specimen' if I may say so.

This is where training in an uncontrolled environment - especially off-lead areas, is less than good. Try visiting a park perhaps where "on-lead" rules apply. Or even better, work with a friend who can help you by having their own dog on-lead and under control. Or join an obedience club where the "doggy" environment is at least controlled.

Then it is highly possible and likely that the "higher distractions" need to be introduced more gradually. Incremental training. Start with another (one) dog in the area, at a distance where your dog can orientate but not be distracted to the point of detraction from the exercise at hand (ie threshold distance). Build from there. Also, make sure your leadership (not as you perceive it, but as your dog perceives it) is in place. Give your dog adequate attention necessary for care and wellbeing, but avoid being over attentive. Make your "attention" part of your dog's reward for working for you.

Country Joe. That's a different scenario. My musing/conversation was in relation to the difference between a dog taking and holding a dumbell as opposed to not doing so. It wasn't about the dog running when he's not supposed to run. The latter is probably more in line with the obedience control within community that I spoke of. I don't wish to detract or denegrate from the joys (and the hard work that goes before it) of achieving ultimate goals in competition. But isn't 'sport' about the dog being the best dog? In other words, the dog doing what he does because 'its in him' as opposed to doing what he does only because of the form of discomfort he has received in 'making' him do it? Don't get me wrong, please. I train in obedience by using, where necessary (and only then) aversives. The reason I do this is because the field of obedience is not IMO a sport (speaking generally) .... it is a necessity if our dogs are going to be permitted to live within the society we are. I also see nothing wrong with the gentler forms of FR (eg. the "Guide, Show, Place" method that Steve Austin has demonstrated as discussed in earlier posts here) as to my mind it may be about simply showing the dog what action is required for the dog to achieve his ultimate goal. IE Drive satisfaction. But I can identify the difference between that and a dog that has learnt that picking up the dumbell is what he needs to do to avoid unpleasantries. No "moral high ground" here. Purely discussional as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to like FR (but my mind is open if I can recognise true and necessary purpose) nor practice it and I don't believe I have put anyone down for their opposite view in my earlier post. So I don't think I need to "give you a break" as my approach in this thread is not intended as threatening or challenging. But it is intended as thought provocation - at least on my part. Perhaps you're fed up with hearing the type of musings I utter here? For me, though, it's new and therefore fresh and therefore an area where I can stand to learn and therefore self-educate.

Train at home without distractions. Get it totally reliable and REALLY motivated. THEN go to an area with minimal distractions. Get it reliable and REALLY motivated. THEN go to an area with higher distractions. Get it reliable and REALLY motivated. etc. etc. IE Build up on the distractions incrementally. Know that the faster/stronger your dog's recalls are, the less likely he is to take note of the distractions around him on his way back to you.

Hi Dogdude Writing because I found this statement interesting. I've recently been actively involved in Search and Rescue work and have been spending the months since the sad loss of my pet dog and until the arrival of my potential "Search & Rescue" puppy, learning the various aspects of training for this field of important work the S&R dogs do. I have come to learn that these dogs do their work:- Willingly Tirelessly Reliably Endlessly Enthusiastically BECAUSE to them it IS FUN. Or, at least, because the end result (ie their driven goal) is fun. So, I'm not sure how you differentiate between the "fetch" by a "pet dog" as being for fun and the "retrieve" by a "working dog" as being for work. For me, "WORK" is something the dog MUST do for his own sake and safety as well as for the sake and safety of the community within which we thrust him/her. In otherwords, "obedience" where without it the dog's life and welfare could be in danger as might be the people he lives in amongst and around. All the same, making this sort of "work" fun wherever possible is always my goal. The difference is that for its life's sake, the dog needs to learn that reliability is a MUST. In the field of retrieving, if the dog doesn't bring back the dumbell, how does that put the dog or community in real danger? Sorry - perhaps I'm just remiss at being able to properly comprehend your point.

Most dogs are. In fact, I could almost guarantee a successful recall to a dog who hasn't even ever been taught one, when there are no distractions around. As I mentioned in my post above, that's because you've taught him that he CAN, before you built up reliability in your recall.

That's because they've learnt they can. The only way you can teach them NOT to is to assume some control and the only way to do that is to put yourself in a position where you HAVE that control. IE A lead (in this case, I'd recommend a long-line as others here have also done). That way, you are in a position firstly to (a) SHOW them the rules have changed and (b) ENFORCE the rules so you can maintain consistency and build on reliability.

I have used "active Manuka Honey" on and off over the years - both for my dog and for myself. I have used it for a variety of ailments. With Kal, I would give her a teaspoon of it when symptoms of irritable bowel were worse than normal. Can't say it fixed it, but it did seem to reduce the symptoms. I've used it myself when I have had occasion of a very sore throat and also when I've had a bit of chest burn (indigestion?) It fixed both on both occasions. I recently fostered a rescue puppy for a very short time ("Mitch"). It turns out this pup shared transport with another pup who had come down with Canine Cough. Over night Mitch showed clear cough symptoms and, not in full condition as it was, became a bit weak, ears became hot to touch and he went off his food. I made a liquid 'broth' of this active manuka honey (mixed just a tiny amount of vegimite in it as well) and he drank it all down. He was still off his dry food the next morning. The rescuer picked him up and took him to the Vet. The Vet reported no temperature and although suggested to keep our eyes on him, diagnosed no cough. Now, I could have been wrong with what I saw. But to me it was pretty obvious. Perhaps he only copped a very mild dose of cough. Or perhaps the active manuka honey helped. The rescuer informed the Vet that's what I'd given Mitch and he told the rescuer that he knows of it and has heard numerous good results. If you purchase it, get it from a Health Food Shop. NOT a supermarket. The cheaper versions are diluted and don't have the active effect of the 'real stuff'. I purchased mine about 5 years ago (not sure if it is meant to last that long, but still does seem effective) and it was $15.00 back then. Worthwhile, IMO. Staffyluv - give Ollie a pat for me. Wish him the best. I think you'll find the active Manuka Honey will at least soothe the burning he would feel from the ulcer, if it doesn't fix it. That's got to be a relief anyway. ETA: you can also use "active Manuka Honey" on minor wounds/abrasions. Although doing so in summer would not only be messy, it could attract flies and wasps, so be careful. Also, it tastes nice, so your dog would be inclined to lick it off if it is in a spot he can reach.

;) Great stuff! I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Oh no! That's no fun! Don't you know our doggies are SUPPOSED to eat better than we do? Glad your pooch is ok, Arolf. It is always a worry when they exhibit signs of being unwell - especially when they are young.

Fair enough. But if the clubs fly the "VCA Banner", what regulations and policies of the VCA are they bound to observe?