mace

Nekhbet, that dog of yours looks nothing like a Malinois, infact it's one of the worse examples of the breed to look at that I have ever seen? I am not blaming you don't get me wrong there, how a pup turns out is what you get, but regardless or working ability, there needs to some standard IMHO and genetically floppy ears isn't a good one for starters.....hope you don't intend breeding that bitch?

Schutzhund isn't personal protection training, you may as well use a dog trained in Flyball and hope it will protect you on the street. It's not that dogs trained in sport are no good at protection, the reason they are no good at protection is because they aren't trained in personal protection, they are trained in sport, otherwise they are the same dogs taken on a different training path.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You laugh at Keohler LMSW then you ask questions like this: Thanks for the reply, very interesting. And don't worry, not stepping on anyones toes ! Its not advice for me to follow specifically, just a hypothetical to get another opinion on the difference in training when the standard just does not work! From someone who owns working dogs! (Getting a working line breed certainly changes your perspective I was a bit of a cocky shit before. Lol..) You should be able to train anything with a clicker and treat hey?

There are a lot of things people lack confidence in from owning a dog, driving a car to bringing home a new baby, it's natural to be cautious and lack confidence in the unknown and it's a good instructors job to change that and build confidence IMHO. My driving instructor didn't tell me to catch a bus instead of learning to drive because I initially lacked confidence in a tool of transport?. A good dog training instructor should have the ability to apply what ever tools are best for the particular dog and teach the owner how to use them correctly and build the confidence up. Unless a trainer can demonstrate and explain the various tools available, they can't determine what tools the client can master anyway?

My response was directly related. As you very well know from your long history of arguments here under various user names I do not use prong collars myself. K9Pro is also well aware of this, and he is more interested in finding help for dogs owners than forcing some petty political/moral argument onto them. Every trainer who refers to me does so because they have come to expect that I will actually train the dog rather than bang on about which tool is the best to do it with. Just as I don't care if they use a prong collar, they don't care if I don't. The proof is in the pudding, everything else is internet waffle. Yes or no would have been a sufficient answer Adian without all the waffle attached to it :laugh: Personally I don't care if you use prong collars or not, it's just nice to know how many tools trainers have in their box, obviously yours is limited in that case then ;)

A good trainer should be able to take you beyond those boundaries and strengthen your weaknesses and provide the inspiration to achieve that IMHO.

Isn't it the trainers job to provide comfort to the client in what they are teaching?. Are you saying when a trainer lacks teaching ability, you change tools?

I'm confused, are people supposed to turn up and do what the instructor advises them, or turn up with the tool they want and tell the instructor how they would like to be instructed? It's pretty straight forward Aidan, I want to learn how to train using a prong collar, can I book a lesson or two with you to teach me as K9Pro will, yes or no? You're contradicting yourself with every post. In one post you're saying the dog owner should turn up and do what they're told, in the next you're saying the dog owner should turn up and tell the instructor what to do. Make up your mind. Either you go to an instructor because they will figure out the solution for you, or you figure out the solution yourself and go to the instructor to get rid of spare cash/argue. If you read what I wrote instead of avoiding my prong collar question with an unrelated response, I spoke about dog owners arguing with a trainer's tooling and method recommendation which was actually the trainer recommending a prong and the client refusing to use a prong was the context of my post. I referred to the days when the check chain was the latest and greatest tool, clients didn't argue about tooling as they do now, they either learned to train their dog or they didn't. Also in the check chain days, a good trainer was a person with the ability to teach, some were good at training dogs themselves but useless teachers, some were fairly good themselves and great teachers of the basics. These days many trainers blame the clients, they are not ready for certain tools etc ect, perhaps the trainers are lousy teachers being the reason the clients struggle to get their head around things and end up on a Halti to manange a behaviour. Perhaps some clients are uncomfortable using a prong because the trainer isn't a good enough teacher to instruct in the procedure effectively?

I'm confused, are people supposed to turn up and do what the instructor advises them, or turn up with the tool they want and tell the instructor how they would like to be instructed? It's pretty straight forward Aidan, I want to learn how to train using a prong collar, can I book a lesson or two with you to teach me as K9Pro will, yes or no?

I like that there is a variety of methods and tools for training your dog. It means that with research you can find a trainer that suits you and your dog, your training methodology/preference and if you wish to compete, the sport you are interested in. There are many ways to train every behaviour, even a simple sit. Yes, I do too, things are much more advanced than the choke chain days, but I have found many people like to argue with trainers a lot more than they used to about tools and methods, one recently came up with a trainer suggesting an Ecollar for this particular dog and the owner refused to consider one leaving the trainer to arrange something less effective when the Ecollar would have been the ultimate in what needed to be addressed. Just thinking back when I began, you didn't argue with the trainer, you shut up listended intently and did what you were told, I guess it's culture evolution also? So if you went to a trainer who said, "We are not using a prong, we are using a halti", would you shut up and do what you were told??? Agree with Kavik, there are methods I would not use on my dogs and that is my choice, I need both them and me to be comfortable with the methods. We have moved on from the "way back when" times. I don't see it as "moving on" when people refuse to learn particular methods and tools, to me, that is a step backwards. In the "way back then" times, you either learned to train a dog or you didn't and only the good one's who could master the job made it as trainers like the Halti is a good example, dog walks beautifully on a Halti as a testament of training ability, ok take the Halti off and see what the dog has really learned, my guess will be nothing, so how good is that trainer?

I like that there is a variety of methods and tools for training your dog. It means that with research you can find a trainer that suits you and your dog, your training methodology/preference and if you wish to compete, the sport you are interested in. There are many ways to train every behaviour, even a simple sit. Yes, I do too, things are much more advanced than the choke chain days, but I have found many people like to argue with trainers a lot more than they used to about tools and methods, one recently came up with a trainer suggesting an Ecollar for this particular dog and the owner refused to consider one leaving the trainer to arrange something less effective when the Ecollar would have been the ultimate in what needed to be addressed. Just thinking back when I began, you didn't argue with the trainer, you shut up listended intently and did what you were told, I guess it's culture evolution also?

K9: I see what you mean, but using prong collars isn't my policy, I just will use them if need be. I have a list of recommended trainers because we get emails from people in various states in need of help, having someone we can point them too is helpful for them. It isn't much more than that The criteria is, if I know the person, or respect their work, or have worked with them, or have seen the dogs they have worked with and thought they were good at their job, they can be listed. There is no charge for us to list them on our site nor do we get anything from it other than satisfaction of helping someone out of our reach. If it started to produce problems, well I guess would have to reconsider it and maybe set some guidelines, but so far all I have heard are happy people when they have chosen someone from the list we have. That's fine Steve thanks I know that you use a wide range of tools but there are also many trainers who won't use certain tools like the prong even when it may be the best tool for a particular dog. I have actually seen the results after a couple of people have ended up using your prong program with difficult dogs that other methods and tools with other trainers have failed and yes, I was impressed at the behavioual difference from your prong program assisting these dogs. I am not singling out Aidan other than his name came up in this thread having worked with a particular dog mentioned, but if I was in another state from NSW and couldn't make a booking with you personally for hands on prong collar training tuition, I would choose someone off your recommended list, prong in hand and expect they would teach me how to use it? I wouldn't expect one of your recommended trainers not to provide prong tuition or refuse to use one is what I am referring to, but thanks anyway for the explanation

What I am pointing out Cosmolo is the "Act", it's what law is based upon and if your clients have experienced otherwise, then there are obviously other circumstances involved being an incorrectly prepared defence or perhaps no defence at all. If for example a typical scenario: Dog walker is casually walking up the footpath with dog on leash. A dog rushes out of someone's driveway aggressively challenging you or your dog and the leashed dog grabs hold of the offending dog and kills it. The council "may" try to declare the leashed dog dangerous or charge the owner of the leashed dog with a legislation breach which is correct in the effect of a dog injuring/killing another dog, BUT in those circumstances the "Act" over-rides the situation with a defence and the leashed dog "cannot" be found guilty given that it hasn't breached the legislation. This in not my idea of the situation, it's written in black and white :D

K9: Thanks for the kind words Mace, Aidan isn't a K9 Pro outlet, he is on our recommended list though. We don't have any other outlets bar the one in Kurrajong NSW. Thank's for the clarification Steve I would naturally assume with recommended lists be it dog trainers to insurance company panel beaters, that those recommended would follow and share particular protocols and concepts to be on that list, in other words, I would naturally assume that the trainers on you list Steve would use and support your methods and tools effectively. I wouldn't expect for example, Aidan being on your recommended list to tell me he didn't support the use of prong collars or wasn't experienced in using them when you do for example?

Not directed at yourself Snoopy, but all I can say to that is wow! The quality of obedience training in this country must be extraordinary in its ineptness if can take 3 years and 2 trainers to train a dog to walk to heel without pulling or lunging. Just wow! How many countries have you trained dogs in, itsadogslife? I saw Willow myself for a few classes, after she had already learned some bad habits and I've got to say, Snoopy21 has done a really good job with her. Willow is a strong dog, a Dane x Lab from memory, so she had learned how to use her size advantage. A more experienced handler wouldn't have made as many mistakes along the way, good for them, but not everyone comes experienced and not everyone has a biddable dog they can easily control. I've worked with a good variety of dogs now, and while the principles stay the same, no two dogs are the same either genetically, or in their learning history. +2! If I had tried to train my GSD with the same basic training that was incredibly successful with my Lab, I would have a out of control/border line dangerous dog by now! Some dogs are just more difficult to train, whether it be the tool or the trainer using it, there's no simple black and white answer. A strong, driven dog with a history of success at pulling their owner around, plus a owner who is non-confrontational can be a difficult combo! That why we're lucky to have so many different tools and training methods to our advantage ! Personally, I think there is too much pussy footing around with people these days. When I leaned to train, you did as you were told, you didn't tell the trainer that you didn't like for example check chains for the trainer to produced a tool you may like better, the trainer assessed your dog and told "you" what tools to use and then taught "you" how to use them being the reason you hired a trainer to learn how to train your dog? Good check chain work isn't easy to learn and get the timing right and probably most people struggled with it initially but the trainer worked on that with you until you got it right and not too many people if any that I can recall couldn't do get it right, some took a bit longer, but most mastered it easily enough after a few sessions with the trainer. I was one of those people who messed up and lacked confidence with the check chain intially and I told my trainer exactly that, but he didn't whip out a different tool, he taught me confidence to use the tool correctly and I became good at it with great confidence, but nowdays, someone messes up intially or doesn't like a particular tool, the trainer just gives in and produces something else, not specifically to best suit the dog's behaviour, but to suit the dog's owner. I think in many cases, some trainers are too quick fire to pull out the wrong tool for the dog to suit the owner's whim where IMHO more work should be focused on the owner to teach the owner how to use the right tool for their dog.

Isn't Aidan a K9Pro outlet in Tassie, that's why I asked the question? I have seen some excellent results Steve Courtney has produced taking management tools to the next level using a prong to train desired leash behaviour with dogs formally on harnesses and head collars?

Not directed at yourself Snoopy, but all I can say to that is wow! The quality of obedience training in this country must be extraordinary in its ineptness if can take 3 years and 2 trainers to train a dog to walk to heel without pulling or lunging. Just wow! How many countries have you trained dogs in, itsadogslife? I saw Willow myself for a few classes, after she had already learned some bad habits and I've got to say, Snoopy21 has done a really good job with her. Willow is a strong dog, a Dane x Lab from memory, so she had learned how to use her size advantage. A more experienced handler wouldn't have made as many mistakes along the way, good for them, but not everyone comes experienced and not everyone has a biddable dog they can easily control. I've worked with a good variety of dogs now, and while the principles stay the same, no two dogs are the same either genetically, or in their learning history. Why would you not use a prong collar on Willow out of interest?

Yes I can say Cosmolo, repercussions revolve around this: (Victorian legislation regarding dog bites and attacks) (9) In any proceeding for an offence under this section, it is a defence to that offence if the incident occurred because— (a) the dog was being teased, abused or assaulted; or (b) a person was trespassing on the premises on which the dog was kept; or © another animal was on the premises on which the dog was kept; or (d) a person known to the dog was being attacked in front of the dog. Councils can only adopt legislation provided for by the state animal management act, most are the same throughout Australia regarding dog bites and attacks. A leashed dog can attack an off leash dog in the situations above and if it's in a leash controlled area the defence is simple as it's written into the act. If the offending dog either teases, abuses or assults your dog or attacks you the handler, your dog can attack and bite the offending dog without repercussion, however, if the case is not presented properly or the owner of the leashed dog agrees that their dog acted improperly, prosecutions may arise in those cases.

How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. A muzzled dog cannot put holes in another dog or a person or another animal for that matter. I would say muzzling is good risk management. This. I have a friend who's large cross breed dog has been declared dangerous. Said dog was lounging at the neighbours tennis court enjoying sandwiches as it did every week when the ladies came over to play. One of the lady's husbands brought along his JRT which decided to latch onto my friend's dog. Said dog took offence to the little dog and picked it up/shook it doing damage in the process. (Puncture wounds, but nothing more serious - if the dog had really meant it the JRT would have been in serious trouble.) The owner of the JRT complained and my friends dog is now restricted. Fault is not always a good indicator of who will get the blame. Prevention is far better than cure IMO. The dog's owner probably went along with the DD order that council set, if that's what happened as described, it would be easy to over-ride that order if the defence was conducted effectively, however two dogs allowed in a tennis court requires effective control of the two dogs which makes things a bit more sticky to defend perhaps?

How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? When councils investigate a dog attack, they look at the actual attack - who attacked who, damage done and so on. Leashed or not leashed is a consideration, certainly, but not the ultimate determinant of which dog is at fault.I know coz I have asked. If your dog is involved in an attack and does damage to another dog/person/animal, regardless of who started it, you risk losing your dog. I did not know that! That's a real worry for anyone who likes dogs that might be capable of hurting another dog, even if they would never start it. That's incorrect and has been tested at civil law on two occasions that I know of, one case was a dog on leash killing an off leash dog, both cases the leashed dog was found not guilty under the provocation of a dog already in breach of generally 3 actions prior to the attack, 1. off leash in a leash controlled area, 2. not under effective control, 3. rushing at another animal to begin with versus a dog/owner in full legislation compliance at that stage. Unless there was strong evidence that the owner of the leashed dog allowed it to attack, like cornered the other dog for the purpose of mounting an attack or something equally bizaar, a leashed dog in an injury case verus an unleashed dog will win with an incident occurring in a leash controlled area when civil cases can be used as a precident, council won't have a hope in hell to bring a destruction or dangerous dog order upon a dog in such a case and most councils wouldn't pursue such a case anyway. The two civil cases I recall were conducted that way after council deemed the leash dog was not in breach of legislation and no action was taken in the matter.

How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area? You are right if that is the case, I rarely walked in leash restricted areas. Yes, then other forms of effective control are required in non leash restricted areas, that's correct and a muzzle in those circumstances could be beneficial.

Probably, and what happens next? Do you know who always gets the blame when this sort of thing happens? Are you talking blame from a moral perspective or legal?

How can a council make a destruction order over a leashed dog versus a dog wandering at large in leash restricted area?

Yes that's right, now imagine your dog getting taken down like that because it was muzzled and if unmuzzled would have wiped the floor with the offending dog in a fair fight?. In my belief, you handle a DA dog accordingly in public to prevent reactivity, but if the unthinkable does happen, I would prefer my dog to have a fair chance of survival, muzzled it won't have that fair chance to defend it's self as it would without one.

That's your experience shared fair enough, but what you have experienced is not what will happen across the board in all cases. I know of a DA Rottweiler who suffered a terrible leg injury from a smallish DA dog, had the Rotty been unmuzzled, he would have easily taken the other dog out given the size difference instead of having severed tendons in his front leg as a result. The vet believed the muzzle intesified the injury as all the Rotty could do was tear away his leg trying to free himself with no teeth to fight off the offending dog adequately. I am merely pointing out that a general feeling to muzzle a DA dog means it's all good, is not necessarily the case in all situations. A muzzled dog can be similar to a boxer stepping into the ring with hands tied behind his back is what I am referring to in a volitile situation.