Just Midol

I changed my mind, expanded my definition and limited it in some aspects. That quote is no longer relevant.

Yeah, Kelpie, I will definitely go along. Is he the fella you told me about in the past? tkay, you got it. My main point of interest lies on how the crossing with wild wolves, as in those that did not have this "symbiotic" relationship could have impacted on the breeds we have now. Not all breeds have the mixing of wolves so recently in their breeding, so imo, any breed with that mixing is rather unique in the way they are trained. This is all dependent on breed lines though and I'd hazard a guess that this is more relevant in countries that actually have wolves. In my research (limited) it's very very controversial and no real proof exists which is far from widely accepted, the only "proof" I could find is that we've found dog remains in human camps. It's the best we have now, but imo, it is far from conclusive unless I have missed something. So while I'd agree that most animal scientists agree with co-evolution everything else is very controversial.

My pup is now 16 wks and I have taught her to drop and sit by luring her into position (she caught on quickly using this method ). She is now pretty solid in the drop position and will stay down with me standing beside her. At training last week the trainer was showing the class how to get their pup to drop and used mine as a demo (never again ). He showed the class the forced method, which my pup wasn't used to, and when she fought him he held her down until she cried. He released her just as I walked towards him to grab her off him, and not wanting to cause a scene in front of the class I left it at that. I just wish people were given the option of luring first and if that doesn't work by all means explore other methods that will work for your particular dog - including forcing if that's what works, but don't start with that method! If he let go when the dog cried then I'd leave instantly. That'd be poor training. I suggest you look at it objectively. The dog wasn't crying because he was being hurt. You can choose to let your dog walk all over you but any decent trainer will persevere.

I was reading something the other night about the theories of dog domestication and can't find the link so I am asking for views here, remember, my interest lies in Huskies so the majority of my views are specific to the Husky. I don't know about the history of other breeds. Does everyone here believe all breeds of dogs evolved in identical ways? I know it is pretty accepted that some dogs were domesticated because they were scavanging around camps and rady rada ra, they were domesticated. I've seen this theory often discussed on here by two individuals and I have to say, that with all the reading I have done I don't necessarily agree. While I see why trainers don't like to say training can be breed specific. IMO, the evolution of the dog can be breed specific and I don't see why as dog owners & trainers we have this desire to remove breed from the equation. I highly disagree with the claim that dogs took the first domestication step in Asia 15,000 years ago. There is no conclusive proof of this at all. I do agree that it occured at least 15,000 years ago. There is evidence to suggest it could have been as long as 140,000 years ago. Anyway, so lets assume we agree that they man did not have an active role in the domestication process and it occured 15,000 years ago because we started living in smaller villages which meant more food and resources for the dog so they became more comfortable getting closer and turned into scavangers. We'll pretend this is a fact but in reality it is simply a theory with no proof. Okay, my main question and issue with this theory comes now.......... Why do we make the assumption that all breeds of dogs evolved in the same manner? I see many people do it everywhere. Why does the current popular theory claim all breeds descended from Asia approximately 15,000 years ago? No matter how hard I search I can't find any real proof to this. I can find fairly weak links, they might be the only information we've got but they are still very weak links. Have you all stumbled across some evidence that I am unable to find? Because from what I've read, this current idea that all dogs descended from the village does simply does not make sense especially when you take into account that some breeds still have very, very high predatory and hunting instincts (like the husky) - if all dogs descended from village dogs who were scavangers then predatory & hunting instinct in my mind should have been almost diminished.

There is nothing wrong with compulsion. It's very common and widely used... If the dog won't lure then the dog won't lure and you'd have to be an idiot to persist with a method of training that isn't working. I force my dogs into the drop, and they learnt it. If I was luring they'd never have caught on. There is nothing wrong at all with the methods your puppy preschool is using. Personally, I'd try and lure first now that I actually know how to but there is not a thing wrong with using compulsion, many trainers use it. I use it. Terra, marker training can be used in compulsion. It can be used in far more than shaping or luring... I don't know where you get the idea that it can only be used in two ways from? Compulsion still results in a dog enjoying it? You don't force the dog for life, you are simply teaching him the position - they still get plenty of rewards. What would you do if you got a dog that couldn't be lured? Contrary to popular belief, luring does not suit all dogs.

Based on what parameters? Based on my view that racing is a sport. Yes, I know, people make a living on it. I don't care. It's a sport. If someone uses a horse on their farm, to work, then that horse is a working horse. If someone uses a horse to pull a cart and offers cart rides then that horse is a working horse. A horse racing around a track? Nah. That's not a parameter Yes it is, that's the point of this pointless discussion But it is sport, as opposed to work. What's the difference between someone planting trees for 4 hours and playing rugby for 4 hours? Both require physical strength, stamina, energy... You put effort into both... But playing rugby isn't work. Even if you're paid for it, I'd consider you a professional sports player as opposed to a working man or woman. Some may disagree, I have a feeling you will. This doesn't support your argument that sport horses are work horses. All it does is tell us that very few people work their horses now? The horse is DOING work but it is NOT A WORKING HORSE. Who said it was more or less valid? I certainly didn't. I said it is different. In fact, I've said several times that accomplishments in sport are no less worthy than accomplishments in work. They're not the same, both are commendable, but they're different.

Based on what parameters? Based on my view that racing is a sport. Yes, I know, people make a living on it. I don't care. It's a sport. If someone uses a horse on their farm, to work, then that horse is a working horse. If someone uses a horse to pull a cart and offers cart rides then that horse is a working horse. A horse racing around a track? Nah. Then stop complaining it is pointless The majority of discussions are

So basically you just want people do validate your somewhat confused viewpoint I'm not confused at all. In fact, the majority of working owners share my view. If I posted this on the working forum I wouldn't have received a single yes. I have to question why obedience trialers want their dog to be considered working dogs... And... No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse. Then don't take part in the discussion?

Yeah, my vet said if I try and time it for lunch time he can even do pretend checkups as Montu improves (the vet surgery has 3 vets, the one who hit him wasn't my normal one). It's 25 minutes away so a bit of a drive but I need to go in next week anyway for Gizmo so will take Monts then. He isn't too bad. He just hates injections and stuff. It shouldn't screw up his training as he has already generalised that people don't = fun and an individual being neutral or positive won't ruin that.

Oops! I meant vets are terrible in regards to fear issues. It is very easy for a dog to build a fear repsonse with vets if they have to go in multiple times for injuries, like my boy. He is only 9 months and has been in about 5 times, injured all of them and every time he has been caused pain, so it's going to be hard to reverse it.

Greytmate knows more than I do, since she was involved in it obviously but rather than push for the ban to be removed they've managed to get exemption for dogs who undergo a behavioural assessment, they wear a green collar. There is probably more to it and I have no idea if they'll ever push for a complete reverse of the muzzle laws.

I think the way the greyhound people tackled the greyhound issues is how BSL should be tackled. Baby steps.

Kavik & Luke, yeah, but it's also a little flexible. I'd consider a Labrador doing drug detection work a working dog as well.

Why will I have a different view? Obedience isn't work, never will be. I'm intending to compete in Schuhtzhund. Schuhtzhund isn't work either. It's sport. ETA: Yes, okay Pax, anything your dog does not want to do is work. Whatever you want. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

To someone who will never own a true working dog then it won't matter, and the discussion will seem useless. If that's the case, then you shouldn't bother reading it. But to those of us who do, the comment arose when someone in the GSD thread stated that their dogs do work... When talking about work from a breeding perspective you are discussing whether the dog can perform the tasks which it is bred for. When you claim your dog works you are implying you are testing their working ability. Obedience is not doing so. So to someone who does not have the desire to own a true working dog and only wants dogs for their own pleasure then drawing distinctions is useless, and I don't expect you to ever understand.

1) It's a check chain. You don't choke your dogs. 2) Everything that can be done on a check can, imo, be done on a head collar. Both are tools, both can have the same results. I'd use a check, they're cheaper, easier to use and easier to fit (and I am better with one). Head collars are ugly as well Heidii, I've never seen the harness in question but it must apply pressure when the dog pulls, enough pressure to be uncomfortable.

Similar system to the gun license. But... how do we ensure that people have a license? Require it to be attached to their dog leash? The trouble I have is the enforcement side of it. It'd require multiple reforms covering the selling of dogs, management, council organisation... It wouldn't be simple nor easy.

Missed that. Nope, support licensing of all dog owners. Unsure how effective it will ever be though. So while I support the "theory" side of it I'd have to see how it'd be implemented in practice first.

I actually fully support a licensing system.

Is it urgent to fix? Is it likely to cause complaints? If so, would your neighbours be willing to put up with it for a while till you've fixed it? With dog barking, those questions are more important than anything imo.

Those who believe an obedience dog is a working dog... Is a show dog a working dog? They perform obedience related commands in the ring. They have to heel and they stack both are obedience commands...

Yeah, I agree. Obedience takes work to succeed, but it is not work.

Well what about the professional mushers perspective. If they make their living sled racing, are their dogs working dogs? Tough one. And I'm not sure. It's not black and white. The only black and white part of this discussion is that an obedience dog is not a working dog.

I've said 3 times now that I'm not talking about the dogs perspective. Well, 4 now. ETA: Rescues can be harder, but they can be easier. Isn't fair to generalise. My rescue is far easier than the first dog I had from a puppy.

You seem to consider that a "working" dog is not a dog competing in any sort of sport. Is that correct? Unless the task is related to the instincts specifically developed in the breed, the task cannot be "work"? Yes & No. I don't think I've explained myself properly. I don't consider it a working dog if it is competing in sport. However, quite a few of the Iditarod teams work. If they only compete in the Iditarod then the dog is a sport dog. A very, very good sport dog but a sport dog. If they compete in the Iditarod AND work then they are a working dog which dabbles in sports The second. Not really. This is what I am having trouble defining. I was more thinking of herding when I said that, but it doesn't really apply to all breeds so it isn't really relevant. The real issue is whether or not the dog is doing a job. Not whether the dog thinks they are doing a job but whether they are actually doing a job, being paid for it does not matter. There are quite a few definitions of work and working. I noticed most people in this thread chose one which fits their argument so I'll do the same. Working: Work: ETA: I'd argue that they are competing in a sport, rather than working.