Staranais

I do too. It's pretty easy to get a reasonable heel with the basic turns, but start throwing in complicated turns, changes of pace, pivots, jumps, etc or even just demanding a more precise position, and it gets way harder. We go to obedience each week, and my nice instructor is always able to point out at least one problem with our heel work. Teaching loose lead walking isn't as time consuming, though. And it sounds like LLW might be more like what Snoozy is after at the moment?

I think you might be on to something. :rolleyes: Lots of people seem to think that being a leader is all about pushing a dog around, making sure that you "dominate" your dog, as if the dog is just waiting in the wings to seize the pack leadership the first time you show a moments weakness. I can see why people don't like that idea, and I see why they don't think that kind of "leadership" is necessary (for the vast majority of dogs anyway). Less gets said about a leader's responsibilities and obligations. Any hey, if you want a more PC word, perhaps you need to start encouraging your clients to be their dog's "guardian"? :lol

Susan Clothier: http://www.flyingdogpress.com/leadership.html Patricia McConnell "the other end of the leash" has a good chapter on dominance, and is a very good book overall - highly recommended. An article called "Groundwork to Establishing Pack Structure for Adult Dogs" can be found here: http://www.leerburg.com/dogtrainingebooks.htm The Leerburg website has a heap of great stuff (and some that's not so great, I have been told that over the years Ed Frawley has changed from a mostly yank-and-crank trainer to one who uses a lot of drive and even sells clickers, but unfortunately some of the old stuff is still on the website!) Keep in mind that the Leerburg people generally deal with very pushy, high drive working dogs - not just pets - but it is an interesting perspective. Jan Fennell's "Dog Listener" books might be a good read for you, although they definately aren't my favourites. She has lots of useful exercises to do with dominant or pushy dogs, but from what I can tell she does not have a wide knowledge base, from reading her book I get the impression that she thinks just about every problem behaviour is caused by "dominance" - I wouldn't bother buying her books, but get them out of the library if they're there. Cesar Milan's book "Cesar's Way" is OK too, he deals almost exclusively with pack structure. I liked it more than his TV shows anyway! Another one to get out of the library if it's there, but not to buy, IMO. It's strange, isn't it? I understand why some people don't like the word "dominant" since perhaps it suggests alpha rolls and beatings, etc. But what could be wrong with the word "leader"?

I agree that this is a confusing topic. Most trainers I have talked to agree that dogs need some sort of leadership from their owners (thought they might call it something else), but there seem to be a lot of different ideas out there about what leadership actually is and how we can tell whether we have it. Some dog trainers I have talked to have quite silly (IMO) ideas about what leadership is. Some don't believe in it at all, I have talked to people who think that leadership is a dirty word, and being a dog's leader is just not needed if you train your dog properly and positively. Whereas others go to the other extreme and seem to think that anything "naughty" your dog does is necessarily a sign of bad leadership. I think that's rather simplistic, in my experience dogs can be "naughty" for many reasons - health reasons, fears, or perhaps we rewarded that behaviour in the past, or we never bothered to teach and reward an alternative behaviour? To me, being a leader is giving your dog everything he needs, both physically and mentally. It's insisting that your dog respects you and your wishes, not letting your dog disregard you or demand things from you. It's teaching your dog everything he needs to know to cope with life in a human orientated world, where following his natural instincts can sometimes be dangerous. It's protecting him from unwanted interaction from strange people, strange dogs and letting him take his cue from you in scary environments. I know I am my dog's leader as he turns to me for guidance in times of stress, he (generally) obeys my directives under distraction, he acts very worried and unhappy if he senses that I am upset with him, and he would rather be around me than anybody else. In other words, I mostly agree with Erny. Interesting topic!

Really? That's interesting, sounds quite different to the way we do things over here. Thanks for answering.

Well done! What does "TQT" stand for (we don't have it in NZ)?

A few questions please - how old is your dog, and what do you mean by "attacked"? What did he actually do to the puppy? Personally I'd recommend that you don't take your dogs to the dogpark at all, some people will disagree, but for many dogs it can be a stressful and dangerous environment. Set up play dates with dogs you know instead, that way your dog can still socialise, but will be safe. You've just seen one of the nasty things that can happen when a gang of strange dogs engage in pack behaviour - you don't want your dog to be on the receiving end, or even to learn that such behaviour is appropriate. As for your dog growling when you took him back on leash, "leash aggression" isn't that uncommon. Dogs often feel confined when on a leash. They know they can't defend themselves and therefore feel stressed and act defensively. So taking an onleash dog to an offleash dog park isn't such a hot idea, IMO. If you're concerned about your dog's behaviour, a trip to a good dog behaviourist is never a waste of money. Hopefully someone here can recommend one in your area. ;)

I'd rather post here, since it could be of use to someone else (and if other people post their research then I might hopefully learn something new too.) From what I've seen, there's simply not much research out there on the benefits or downsides of e-collars, I've only ever found a few relevant peer reviewed studies (just had another hunt round our vet library database, since it's a pretty interesting topic, but didn't turn anything new up since last time I checked. Hey, I'm a nerd! ;) ). The lack of information's not unique to e-collars, I've found very few peer reviewed articles on prong collar or haltis either. Perhaps the funding just isn't out there for them to be conducted? Anyway, like Erny says, most research on e-collars is pretty poor science: the collar is abused (used non-contingently or on confused dogs) or used at very high levels with the intent to cause pain. e.g a recent example: Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 85, Issues 3-4, 25 March 2004, Pages 319-334 Matthijs B. H. Schilder and Joanne A. M. van der Borg IMO if they repeated the same study but instead unexpectedly caused pain with choke chains or haltis they would probably get similar results, attributing the results to the fact the punisher was electric shock is poor science. This is an older one I found which you may or may not have seen: Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with domestic sheep Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 72, Issue 2, 26 April 2001, Pages 115-129 Frank O. Christiansen, Morten Bakken and Bjarne O. Braastad A more recently and slightly better study, IMO, is one that was recently quoted on DOL: Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 105, Issue 4, July 2007, Pages 369-380 E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, S. Ott and R. Jones-Baade Abstract states that: "This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators." I doubt you'll find any peer reviewed studies proving that e-collars are beneficial though, because that's a pretty subjective and complicated thing to measure. I guess it would all depend on how we measured the "benefits" - will we measure whether there is less stress to the dog during learning, more rapid learning, best final result, better retention of learning, easier for a professional trainer to implement, easier for a dog owner to use, or what? And no matter which criteria we chose, I imagine that you'd probably find the e-collar to be beneficial, when used in certain ways, to teach some things, to some dogs, when compared to some tools - and not beneficial if used in other ways or on other dogs or to teach some other behaviours (like just about any other training tool). If you have some worthwhile peer reviewed articles on e-collars, please share! They're hard to come by.

IMO that's kind of similar to people who dislike prong collars, or choke chains, or haltis, so imply that every use of them is abusive and unnecessary. Most change their minds at least somewhat after seeing the tools applied properly and appropriately. Personally, I hated haltis for years after seeing them abused at my first obedience school (dogs on haltis were allowed to lunge and get their necks wrenched, haltis were slapped on dogs who then panicked or shut down, all by people who called themselves "positive" ). I've since come to talk to people who actually use these tools appropriately, and they're not as bad as I thought. Still wouldn't be my first choice of tool for most situations or most dogs, not by a long shot, but I've come to realise they can be handy sometimes when introduced and used appropriately. I think a lot of people go through the same type of thing with modern e-collars - they've heard of shock collar abuse in the past, or even seen it, and won't change their mind about the tool until they see one used appropriately and usefully by an experienced professional. As for me, there aren't many trainers that I would trust to use an e-collar on my own personal dog (K9Force and Erny are the only two who spring to mind right now!), but I have nothing against the tool per se, and definately see the advantage of being able to correct or interrupt a dog at a distance. I've felt the stim of a modern e-collar at every level, and doubt that thoughtful and judicious use of the collar would cause a dog any more stress than any other form of punishment or behavioural interrupter would.

I'm interested to hear the answer too. Please don't keep us in suspense, Steph & Bam! :p But from K9Force's question, then if the ball is being thrown, I'm wondering if the dog is sitting slowly because he's expecting to have to jump up again and run after the ball? So he doesn't relax into the sit.

Thanks Kelpei-i and Jesomil. :p

Does he mean faeces from large herbivores - horses etc? Or their own faeces? :p So where do wolves get their iodine from - they don't often have access to kelp, do they? And if wolves are quite happy and healthy without kelp in their diet, wouldn't we expect that dogs would be too? Thanks for your help, Mack Truck! I'm not trying to pick apart your advice, just trying to figure out why Billinghurt says that a diet that is supposedly based on what dogs "evolved" to eat apparently needs to include all sorts of artificial supplements.

We do half "Butch Blue Label" dog roll & half raw, with table scraps. Raw including lamb ribs, lamb flaps, chicken carcasses, chicken necks, beef bits, beef and lamb organs, pig trotters, eggs, fruit. Why does Billinghurst recommend adding those two supplements? Does he give a reason? Seems to me that wolves wouldn't exactly have access to those things, so unless they're replacing things found in parts of the carcass that we don't often feed our dogs, they shouldn't be necessary?

Others will probably disagree, but I think many people have a tendancy to over-diagnose dogs as "dominant". What I mean by that is, what might be a sign of dominance in a few rare dogs, isn't necessarily a sign of dominance in all dogs. Not all dogs lean on you to be dominant - many just enjoy body contact, same as they did with their littermates when they were young. Not all dogs touching you with their forelimbs are trying to be "dominant" - some are innocently trying to get your attention. Dogs who walk out the door ahead of you aren't necessarily being "dominant" - perhaps you just never taught them that you'd prefer to go through first? Likewise, some dogs pull on walks because they are excited and have been rewarded for pulling in the past - it doesn't necessarily mean that they're planning a takeover of your alpha role. I think many dogs would be surprised if they learned how many of their innocent gestures we interpret as sinister signs of "dominance". So I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO, if you're trying to decide whether your dog is "dominant", I'd personally look at his overall demeanor, rather than just being worried about one or two quirks of behaviour. If you're worried about his behaviour in general, then you might want to crack down on anything that could possibly be a sign of "dominance", such as resting his paws on you or leaning on you, as well as making sure you're using NILIF, Tot, etc. But if he's generally respectful and obedient and attentive to you, I wouldn't necessarily take these small things as signs of doom. I am more concerned about him peeing on you, if it was deliberate. No dog I know would pee on another dog that it respects. Dogs pee on their territory and on their possessions - not on their leaders.

The problem with "x years of practical experience" is that the experience might not be in dealing with the type of problem that your dog has, and in that case if the practitioner doesn't have a solid theoretical background too, they aren't going to be able to treat (or possibly even identify) the problem that your dog has. I've paid good money to behavioural trainers before, most assured me they could help me, but then gave me a "one size fits all" solution. E.g - one had had success using Jan Fennel type methods before, so she decided that my dog's aggression must be caused by him being "dominant" over me, and thought that if I got "dominant" over him then the dog aggression would be cured. Another had had success treating fear aggression, so she decided that contrary to appearance, deep down, my dog must really just be fearful, and when he got aggressive he needed reassurance and treats. Complete waste of money in both cases. They didn't have enough theoretical knowledge to work out what was going on, they just had one "pet" method that they stuck to because they had some success in the past with it. Experience without theoretical knowledge just isn't always that useful. It means you can only treat problems that you've experienced before - if you get presented with a totally new problem, you'll be lost. I know good behavioural trainers and good veterinary behaviourists. All the good ones have a solid knowledge of dog training theory and years of experience. So personally I'd value references and word of mouth, plus actually talking to the trainer and seeing how much sense they make, over any type of qualification or any amount of "experience".

Bugger, was about to report you to Hughley Wirthless!! :rolleyes: Edited coz I can't spell! Well, I'm sure my predatory little stafford would be even more focused if I could reward him with live mice. But not sure what they would say down at the obedience school!

At home - kibble. We go through quite a lot of food while teaching so I want it to be reasonably nutritious food for him. He doesn't get this in his regular diet, so thinks it is a treat. I throw it for him to chase instead of give it, so it's even more exciting for him. Plus I make him work for his dinner too! At obedience school - bits of sausage or mice, and a toy. ETA: I mean MINCE, not mice! :rolleyes:

Can't you cook well minced bone? :rolleyes: I know cooking chunks of bone is bad since it changes the texture of the bone, can cause splinters etc. But if the bone is already well minced, does it matter if it is cooked? Interesting question, I don't know the answer.

I don't think you're supposed to. If you can't chop it while it's frozen, why not defrost and feed the dogs as much as you can over the next two days, then just cook & freeze the rest (use as training treats etc?) Seems a pity to waste it. :rolleyes:

I have heard that wolves often eat fruit though, when it is available. Not sure if that is true or not. The feral dogs I saw in Nepal ate absolutely anything, but I think they were pretty hungry. :rolleyes: Can't wait to do the course involving animal nutrition (in vet school) next year, will be so interesting to actually read all the scientific studies all these theories are all based on! Seems like everyone has a pet opinion about what wolves do or did eat.

Wow, that's lots of supplements. I just add salmon oil (since I don't feed much nervous tissue the dogs need to get their omegas from somewhere) and occasionally vitamin E (plus arthritis supplements).

Adding raw bones will keep his teeth nice and shiny, that's one thing kibble doesn't do. I agree with not feeding raw and kibble at the same meal, though, since they are digested differently. Also agree with processing the carrot instead of grating it, so he can get the nutrients out. I personally wouldn't give my dog edible bones to eat while I was away, I always supervise these in case of choking. He gets kongs or big recreational bones (too big to swallow) if I'm out. But perhaps I'm just paranoid?

Heck! You have a lot of catching up to do, Pinnacle. E-collars of today no longer work in the same way as they did way back then in the days of the "shock-collar". Today's e-collars stimulate the muscle. It is not about shocking the brain. Erny said what I was going to say. E-collar produces an uncomfortable sensation by stimulating the skin and/or muscle. It has nothing to do with the dog's brain, except so far as every stimulus you give a dog (good or bad) is carried to its brain via electrical impulses. But I do agree with you that trainers shouldn't use tools if they are not informed about how they work or how they affect the dog, so good on you for doing your research.

No way! And you might not ask such a thing, if you actually met my dog during one of his aggressive hissy fits.

You may never be able to correct the behaviour, if by "correct" you mean having a dog that always stays calm and polite around strange dogs, even if the other dogs are being completely obnoxious and threatening. IMO that's an unreasonable thing to expect of your dog. What you should be doing is protecting your dog from having to deal with obnoxious or aggressive dogs. Letting your dog get bitten or scared by strange aggressive dogs is a good way to make him more and more reactive and dog aggressive. If you put your dog into situations where he feels he has to defend himself against other dogs, he will possibly also lose confidence in you as leader (as the leader, it's your job to protect your dog against strange dogs, if you don't do that, you're not doing your job and IMO you're letting your dog down). What I'd suggest you do is make sure you don't put your dog in any situation where he feels he has to defend himself against strange dogs. Cross the road if you see rude-looking dogs approaching you on leash. Avoid offleash areas - if you want to socialise him, then set play dates with safe dogs instead. If people in your neighbourhood walk their dog illegally offleash, ask them to put their dog on leash, and if you see them offleash again, call animal control on them and keep calling until something is done about it. Your dog shouldn't be scared or damaged because other people refuse to comply with the law. Carry a water gun to use on the other dogs in emergencies if you think it will help stop strange dogs approaching your dog. I do pick my dog up as a last resort if it's the only way to prevent him being rushed by strange dogs, and it has been helpful for us in reinforcing to him that I will always handle the situation when we encounter strange dogs, even if it is by physically removing him from the situation to keep him safe. But my dog doesn't redirect and is comfortable with this. It might not work for you. Getting a good behaviourist to help you "fix" aggression is always helpful, but IMO it's better to prevent aggression forming in the first place.