mace

Who told you that Cosmolo Haven't you ever seen a dog take on more than it can chew, turn tail and run away, many DA dogs are fear biters acting on a learned behaviour when they charge at other dogs aggressively? But the difference is with a muzzled dog, it's ability to fight is compromised to diffuse a situation where an unmuzzled dog isn't. Your own dog muzzled isn't safer in a fight with a dog who isn't muzzled and is more vulnerable to cop a real hiding, for my dog, I don't want that to happen if unmuzzled provides a better chance at survival. No responsible owner or trainer would put any dog, let alone a reactive one in a situation where it had to fight for it's survival. Of course not, but an owner/trainer's resposibility can't control the actions of someone else's dog, a roaming DA dog suddenly appears charging towards your leashed dog, what then?

What I am referring to, is people overly attributing a dog's poor behaviour due to incorrect tooling, like my dog pulls like crazy so I need a new tool mentality when watching these dogs, their training is virtually nil with a lifetime of management procedures in place misconstrude as being trained. Many don't need a new tool, they need some actual training to walk on a loose leash not a tool that best manages what is really a free for all when out walking.

Who told you that Cosmolo Haven't you ever seen a dog take on more than it can chew, turn tail and run away, many DA dogs are fear biters acting on a learned behaviour when they charge at other dogs aggressively? But the difference is with a muzzled dog, it's ability to fight is compromised to diffuse a situation where an unmuzzled dog isn't. Your own dog muzzled isn't safer in a fight with a dog who isn't muzzled and is more vulnerable to cop a real hiding, for my dog, I don't want that to happen if unmuzzled provides a better chance at survival.

Simple Cosmolo, the dog that gets latched onto is your muzzled dog which can also come with severe injury to your dog, why on earth would anyone want their own dog injured by an off leash dog when it could potentially diffuse the situation being unmuzzled and come through it unscathed

Fair enough, thanks for sharing, I respect your view

I don't agree that dogs take advantage of their strength, I think they take advantage of a lack of leadership from their handler to be honest. maybe so but then howcome it's improved when i haven't changed my training technique? either way, i love the new harness It's designed to manage the behaviour and the way to test it to determine if the harness has taught the dog anything is take it off and see what happens ;) Adopting a better training technique could find the dog will behave appropriately off leash too, if a tool doesn't work towards an end result which to me means having obedience without leash restraint, those tools don't really excite me a lot. fair enough, maybe it's my lack of training skills or whatever but i admit i wouldn't trust my dog off leash in public places anyway because all he wants to do is play with any dog in sight, some people even avoid walking past us, our recall command isn't reliable (my fault, i know) and being a rottie he's already been blamed for an accident that wasn't even his fault and i'll do anything to avoid similiar situations again where he'd be the first to get blamed so if it means being on leash all the time then be it I get the picture of where you are coming from, but you would be amazed how a good trainer could help you achieve excellent behaviour. I am just not into tools taking priority over training to gain appropriate behaviour from a dog, "nothing" is more pleasurable to me than owning a controllable and obedient dog, it's just wonderful IMHO and beats any management tools hands down :D

I understand your reasoning, but off leash dogs in on leash areas don't matter legally, however if you get a DA off leash dog attack yours who can't fight back being muzzled, protecting off leash dogs against yours could cause your dog severe injury or worse?. As much as I would hate to think of my dog injuring an off leash dog, I could live with that as the off leash dog is legally in the wrong, but I couldn't live with my dog getting torn to bits because I took her defence mechanism away from her if a situation like that arose?

I don't agree that dogs take advantage of their strength, I think they take advantage of a lack of leadership from their handler to be honest. maybe so but then howcome it's improved when i haven't changed my training technique? either way, i love the new harness It's designed to manage the behaviour and the way to test it to determine if the harness has taught the dog anything is take it off and see what happens ;) Adopting a better training technique could find the dog will behave appropriately off leash too, if a tool doesn't work towards an end result which to me means having obedience without leash restraint, those tools don't really excite me a lot.

Why muzzle a leashed dog reactive or not, I don't get that idea Muzzled or not, the dog is still going to arc up when their reactive threshold is broken, wouldn't it be more productive to work the dog outside of it's reactivity threshold where it doesn't lash out and teach the dog the right behaviour when stress levels are managable?

I don't agree that dogs take advantage of their strength, I think they take advantage of a lack of leadership from their handler to be honest.

oh it definitely is. My comment was more in line with the hard and driven working lines occasionally Teaching a good foundation of the dog-handler relationship and basics is always required if you wish to progress with your dog - I believe very heavily in it and in fact don't believe in just putting any equipment on a dog for the sake of convenience or it's the latest fad to 'control' the dog. I do believe a lot of 'problems' stem from a lack of foundation like you say. Ultimately what is preferable is what helps the dog, particularly because some dogs are not acting like goofy pups at under 12 months of age. But again it is a very rare occasion and I threw the comment in as a generalised overview of what can be done and didnt really direct it towards your average dog I understand thanks for your explanation I am thinking along the lines that many believe poor behaviour is the result of using the incorrect tool where my belief is that poor behaviour is the result of a poor training foundation. Specific tools are great to rehabiliate a dog who has learned seriously poor leash behaviour, but starting off a pup with a proper training foundation I believe can be done with a flat collar and leash without the need to use speciality tools at all. I am saying that so many times I hear people complain about their dog's leash behaviour, excessive pulling etc blaming the tools they use for the misbehaviour when in fact IMHO it's their training process causing the problem not the tools they have chosen?

I know what you mean, but isn't it more effective to take the foundation training back a few steps to teach focus than breaking out a prong collar on a young dog?

Are you talking about using a prong collar to correct the behaviour of young dogs out of control from a lack of foundation training or using a prong as part of the foundation training regime, just interested?

Question: Can they actually throw you out if caught with a pet against the lease contract? Someone told me one if the landlord accepts the rent payment knowing you have a dog is an admission of acceptance and can over-ride the contract? I know a couple of people who have not declared owning a dog and were in the rental for about 3 years after they got dobbed in by a next door neighbour? I am not advocating to be dishonest when applying for a rental, but I did wonder what the law actually is in this regard as I have never known anyone to be actually booted out for breaching pet rules, seen dramas over it, but no evictions?

Noone asked the op to apologise. Fair suggestions were made and two behaviourists (both who will use prong collars where they feel appropriate) were suggested. The OP did apologise Adian (see above) and my point is why should they feel the need to, it was a fair question?

I have noticed many use a 50mm 1.8 lens for taking doggy shots and swear by a fixed focal length. I have a 18-105 zoom on my Nikon D7000 and find with my guys running around I use the zoom all the time standing in one spot to shoot as they run out and come back in close. Just wondering what the advantages are with a fixed focal length, I have seen some awesome shots taken with these lenses hoping someone could give me brief explanation of their use please?

Why should the OP need to apologise for asking about trainers/behaviourists who will use a prong when required? It's a fair question given that there are some out there who do limit their tool usage for the wrong reasons and the dogs and their owners suffer because of their extremist protocols on the subject.

I think that is mostly how the newspapers reported the verdict. The actual amounts awarded are quite low, which suggests to me that the judge apportioned most of the responsibility at the parent who let the child roam. Having said that there is a trend in newspaper reporting never to criticise the person (or guardian) of someone bitten by a dog ie it is always the dogs fault. A few months ago there was a boy attacked by a dog in north west sydney. Newspaper accounts made it sound like the dog just leapt the fence and attacked him. Word on the street (read at the dog park) says that the kids were tormenting the dog shortly before it attacked them. Naturally word on the street is not the most reliable of sources, but the account makes more sense that way. I agree, especially kids can do some silly things. I had a couple of silly kids a few months ago jump out at me from behind a wall making barking noises at my dog, jeepers, if my dog was reactive, one was in lunging distance of the leash and a reactive dog could have taken half the kid's face off, by the time you react and pull the leash in the damage is done but this type of thing isn't the dog or owners fault at all. There was one I remember someone had tied their dog up at a shopping centre, ok probably a silly move, but none the less a tied up dog is no threat, but some kid wound the dog up and got bitten and of course it hit the fan?. Why didn't he leave the dog alone, it could only get to the end of the leash?

I just googled it, I think this is the right case, the child's name was Tyra Kuehne I read through that case, what a terrible tragedy One thing surprised me that the crux of the matter was had the council declared the dogs dangerous previously the poor little girl would be still alive. I would have thought responsible parental supervision of a 4 year old would have had the same result, however that factor was never mentioned It seems like poor parental supervision of kids is accepted and expected, like a kid gets knocked over by a car it's more the driver's fault nowdays, we used to get a smack for playing near the road in the 60's. I don't get it

Dogs can bite people liability free in some circumstances, it depends on the situation. It's like in a public place, a leashed dog can injure an unleashed dog, the leashed dog will get the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong witnessed evidence that someone with a leashed dog instigated their dog to attack. A leashed dog can bite a person who attempts to assault the handler that type of thing. In the home, a dog can bite an intruder depending on state law and their respective companion animal acts, a dog biting an intruder comes under provocation which is an accepted defence. Anyone can sue anyone, but it costs a lot of money to do that and would be doubtful when a dog owner hasn't breached any dog containment laws that such a suit would be successful. I seriously doubt in the OP's case that anything would come of it from a council/police perspective if the kid got bitten at the fence especially if his hand ended up between a fence fight with two dogs involved, it may have been his dog who bit him, although best not have to put the scenario to the test, but I don't think personally from a legal aspect there is anything much to worry about in this situation. It's not a blanket thing across the board if your dog bites someone you are down the creek without a paddle, there are some circumstances where an injury by a dog doesn't result in prosecution. The OP has QLD as her home state on her profile. The dog control acts here do not allow for provocation as an excuse for dog aggression. A problem caused by a dog in QLD may not result in prosecution of the owner, but it can result in the dog being seized and possibly destroyed. There is no court case or hearing, just a council worker's decision. No that's incorrect, here is the QLD legislation I think most states now are the same 1) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 194 or 195 for the defendant to prove— (a) the dog attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, the other person (the complainant) or the animal— (i) as a result of the dog being attacked, mistreated, provoked or teased by the complainant or the animal; or (ii) to protect the defendant, or a person accompanying the defendant (the accompanying person), or the defendant’s or accompanying person’s property;

Dogs can bite people liability free in some circumstances, it depends on the situation. It's like in a public place, a leashed dog can injure an unleashed dog, the leashed dog will get the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong witnessed evidence that someone with a leashed dog instigated their dog to attack. A leashed dog can bite a person who attempts to assault the handler that type of thing. In the home, a dog can bite an intruder depending on state law and their respective companion animal acts, a dog biting an intruder comes under provocation which is an accepted defence. Anyone can sue anyone, but it costs a lot of money to do that and would be doubtful when a dog owner hasn't breached any dog containment laws that such a suit would be successful. I seriously doubt in the OP's case that anything would come of it from a council/police perspective if the kid got bitten at the fence especially if his hand ended up between a fence fight with two dogs involved, it may have been his dog who bit him, although best not have to put the scenario to the test, but I don't think personally from a legal aspect there is anything much to worry about in this situation. It's not a blanket thing across the board if your dog bites someone you are down the creek without a paddle, there are some circumstances where an injury by a dog doesn't result in prosecution.

From my understanding, it amounts to having breached a law in containment of your dog. Tresspassing isn't age dependant as far as I know, a dog in most cases is allowed to bite an intruder on their property. If the dog was in the front yard and could stick it's head through the fence into the street, yes I would say 100% liablilty on the owners part, if's a side fence down the driveway as described I would say the dog is contained effectively and the child has tresspassed. Ideally though it's best if people can't get their hands into the dog's enclosure, we had arm access holes in our side gate which backs onto the street so it can be opened from the outside, we covered the holes in with a piece of colourbond so people, kids etc cant stick their hands in and potentially get bitten.

Hi mace. Its a very interesting point that you make about. Now that I think about it our dogs never saw the inside of a Veterinary Clinic either. If fact, I can't tell you where the Veterinary Clinics were or if there were any other than The Lort Smith. Nowadays, there's practically a Vet on every corner. I can't count the number in Lismore/Goonellabah and there are only about six people in the whole town. (I don't know who all the other people are. I think they're like the grey wanderers :D) Px Yes, it's true, we talked about this over Xmas dinner, my nanna's old dog was the same, pop knew a bloke who's Keplie had pups and bought one home at 5 or 6 weeks old, in the days where you had males by preference then you didn't have seasons to mess around with and leave the males entire, less drama's with males they used to say, but they didn't go to a vet ever and my nanna's old Kelpie went to 16 years old. If dogs didn't get distemper which was the big killer back then and pass on or get hit by a car, most people expected around 15 years of life from the average dog, if one passed on at 10 years we think now is a reasonable life span, back them mum was saying yesterday 10 years old was a bit disappointing in the old days?

Oh Aidan so sorry to hear of your situation, my thoughts are with you and fingers crossed for your girl's recovery, I am having some minor fits with my old Lab it seems they are worrying times when age sets in. 10 or so years sounds like a long time when you first get a new pup, but those years reaching old age when the time arrives pass so quickly unfortanately, feels like only two or three years have passed since they were pups, time creeps up on us so fast. I wondered by your posts Adian, are you saying that your other dog became suddenly ill and passed and now your GSD is sick, like a related illness between them or just a coincidental thing where an illness has met both of yours in a short time frame? I know what you mean with having the opportunity of spending time with and appreciate an older dog, my last Lab at 10 years old was a bit off colour and quite bloated looking, but just thought he was old and lazy feeling a bit crook and took him for a check up, he had liver failure and had to make the tragic call suddenly, never entering our minds he was so sick and didn't get a chance to prepare for what what was happening. Best of luck for you girl

Thanks for the info guys, much apprecitated I feed a mince rice and veges meal also, I have my old Lab (9 years) who's hard to keep weight off and one with a funny tummy who can get the runs easily, and my 3rd is pretty good on most things, so I have worked a balance of my home cooked and kibble giving two smaller meals a day and we are going good. I used Royal Canin for a long time which was good and was also good for training treats, all mine love it, but hey, I am an ordinary person, you get short of money sometimes with a few unexpected expenses and the Royal Canin is expensive, got a bit desparate one week and bought some Supercoat Large Breed and was working great, but when I couldn't seem to find it on the shelf and tried the Supercoat Adult, my boy with the funny tummy became mushy again over a couple of weeks, the other day they were all too soft for my liking, anyway, I bought a bag of Royal Canin Xmas eve two feeds now, we are 90% good in the poos again it seems. My boy with the funny tummy, excuse all the poo talk we had trouble with him from a puppy with intermittant mushy poo, sometimes the runs, did all the vet work and could never find anything wrong with him as such, he would often do a couple of nicely formed dobs and at the end of his motion we would get a big cow dung with a yellowish appearance, that type of pattern, someone recommened to us who had a similar problem with theirs to try Royal Canin with a couple of scoops of plain yoghurt mixed in and feed a meal of that and the home cooked one I do. The funny poos we had went on for two years and was quite disturbing for me never being able to really pin point what was happenning, but in all honesty, the Royal Canin and yoghurt breakfast within a week, completely fixed my boy's funny tummy totally we went almost 6 months with perfect poos, and messed it up with treats I know now not to give him, but the Supercoat Large Breed did the same job for us and was much more cost effective in the tight spots finacially, but there are so many foods to choose from these days it's a mine field to select something? Our old family dog as a kid, was fed on a tin of Pal and table scraps, never had a vaccination in his life, never went to the vet once or got sick and lived to 17 years old, today you would never dream of raising a dog that way, makes you wonder sometimes