"funkyoldcortina" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/12 19:59, Lobster wrote:
On 22/04/2012 22:53, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Phil L wrote

it takes a combination of idiot dog *and* owner for an attack to take
place.

That's not always true..
my mom had a recue poodle..
it was well behaved with everyone..
well everyone until my brother visited for the first time..
as soon as the dog saw him it went barking mad and does so every time
he went there.
It never did that with anyone else.

Yeah, some dogs can be weird like that.

We've recently acquired a puppy, now 3 months old and we're doing all we
can
to 'socialise' her within her first 6 months - apparently that's when the
form all their notions about stuff and is the owner's opportunity to
ensure
they end up with a well-balanced mutt and not a canine psycho. Eg - look
at:
http://tinyurl.com/cfxyarp (or
http://www.myhillskitten.com/~/media...31325234667765)


Funny thing really - ours has been totally laid back about everything and
everyine she's experienced so far - tail never stops wagging - until
today
when she came across someone in the park with a push-chair. Nearly went
into
orbit! What's all that about...?

Up until about 12 weeks puppies have almost no fear!

Even sillier. Depends on the puppy.

Everything is interesting and fascinating to them. That's why you have to
get the socialisation done early, to take advantage of this natural
curiosity and allow them to associate the things they discover with
positive experiences.

After about 12 weeks, things gradually start to spook them,

Again, depends on the dog.

so you have to make more of an effort to ensure the puppy has positive
experiences to avoid them developing a lifelong irrational fear.

Few dogs end up with anything like that.

Sounds like she's starting to reach this stage now and the pushchair was
something new and ultra-freaky to her, with her reaction being that of
nervousness now, rather than inquisitiveness.

Or she was actually reacting to the individual pushing the chair.

You don't know which yet.

"funkyoldcortina" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/12 18:57, Tim Watts wrote:
funkyoldcortina wrote:

On 23/04/12 10:26, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 22/04/2012 23:55, Rod Speed wrote:

Sure, but if you did understand dogs, you'd have allowed for that too.

Cesar Millan doesnt get bitten except in a situation where he doesnt
care about that.

Cesar is brilliant. Humans allowing dogs to become an equal or dominant
member of "the pack" is what causes dogs "bad" behaviour. Most dog
owners are completely clueless as to how dogs "work" even the rescue
homes and animal shelters etc go about things the wrong way.

Cesar Milan is totally out of touch and out of date.

The reason dogs obey him is because he basically frightens them into
submission. Most dog trainers have seen the light and know that
submission-based training is outdated and wrong. The side effect of this
type of training is that you hide the symptoms and make the dog use
"flight" to get out of the bad situation. But this does not mean the dog
will not use "fight" later.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...204/did-cesar-
millan-have-hang-the-husky

Modern positive-reinforcement-based methods which are grounded in
science
are the way and have long-term success. Many trainers are seeing the
light
and moving to this kind of training, including some of the celebrity
trainers such as Victoria Stilwell (from it's me or the dog).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Stilwell

This all feels vaguely familiar.

Ah - yes, Labour education policy.


A better metaphor would be to compare Victorian treatment of children and
the vulnerable to modern day. Dominance theory is totally debunked.

Like hell it is.

See
http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

for the reasons why, and the differences between dogs and wolves.

Even sillier on that last with some breeds.

And for an article with advice from a vet association, read here
http://www.4pawsu.com/dominancestatement.pdf

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

It's simple.

Nope.

It's not just that using dominance theory to try and control a dog doesn't
work.

It clearly does work for Cesar.

It can actually be dangerous and/or make a problem WORSE.

It clearly doesnt with Cesar.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:02:30 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:12:10 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

And does anyone believe it will make any difference? How many postal
workers have been bitten whilst walking in the street. I suspect that if
they are bitten/attacked it will when delivering to a property

I worked as a postie for a very short time. Some dogs used to try and
bite my hands when I was pushing the letters through the letterbox. I
made sure those letters were heavily chewed.

Given that you only have a right to deliver letters and not enter the
house you should have obeyed the guidelines laid down by Royal Mail
and kept your fingers on the outside of the door.

--

In message . com, F
Murtz writes
John wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:56:02 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

OK, possibly off topic but many of you must visit houses where there are
dogs.

Has anyone alse been bitten by a customers dog?

I have been bitten twice.

Microchips are all well and good provided you can catch the damn dog
in the first place. Why not compulsory muzzles when outside the home,
regardles of size or breed? Job done.

The main advantage of compulsory microchipping is to identify the owner
for the various fines the powers that be can think up
No it doesn't. It identifies who it was that had the dog micro-chipped.
The solution is microchippng - now what is the problem?
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
F Murtz wrote
John wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

OK, possibly off topic but many of you must visit houses where
there are dogs.

Has anyone alse been bitten by a customers dog?

I have been bitten twice.

Microchips are all well and good provided you can catch the damn
dog in the first place. Why not compulsory muzzles when outside the
home, regardles of size or breed? Job done.

The main advantage of compulsory microchipping is to identify the
owner for the various fines the powers that be can think up

The main advantage is to be able to find the owners when they are
strays so they can be returned to the owners.
That is why many pole -who incidentally would like their dogs returned -
decide to chip voluntarily.
Those who don't care, or have deliberately turned the dog loose, will
simply say they sold the dog yesterday to a bloke in the pub.


Whether its actually worth the immense cost of microchipping all dogs
tho is another matter entirely.
And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".

--
hugh

In message , Mark
writes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:12:10 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

And does anyone believe it will make any difference? How many postal
workers have been bitten whilst walking in the street. I suspect that if
they are bitten/attacked it will when delivering to a property

I worked as a postie for a very short time. Some dogs used to try and
bite my hands when I was pushing the letters through the letterbox. I
made sure those letters were heavily chewed.
I have every sympathy for posties and they should be given full
protection by law. There was a judgement under the Dangerous Dogs Act
some time ago that the back of a car was for the purposes of the Act to
be regarded as a public place. There should be no difficulty in
extending this concept to include the access to the front door of any
house, or indeed any private property to which the public may
legitimately have access
--
hugh

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:08:03 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:02:30 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:12:10 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

And does anyone believe it will make any difference? How many postal
workers have been bitten whilst walking in the street. I suspect that if
they are bitten/attacked it will when delivering to a property

I worked as a postie for a very short time. Some dogs used to try and
bite my hands when I was pushing the letters through the letterbox. I
made sure those letters were heavily chewed.

Given that you only have a right to deliver letters and not enter the
house you should have obeyed the guidelines laid down by Royal Mail
and kept your fingers on the outside of the door.

I've sometimes thought it'd be useful to have a sort of speculum,
perhaps a rectangular tube section of plastic some 6" x 1", which
could be pushed into the letterbox to open up any brushes and/or a
possible internal flap, so that the desired missive(s), as well as
takeaway menus, charity bags etc. can be simply dropped straight
through the speculum.

--
Frank Erskine

hugh ] wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F Murtz wrote
John wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

OK, possibly off topic but many of you
must visit houses where there are dogs.

Has anyone alse been bitten by a customers dog?

I have been bitten twice.

Microchips are all well and good provided you can catch
the damn dog in the first place. Why not compulsory muzzles
when outside the home, regardles of size or breed? Job done.

The main advantage of compulsory microchipping is to identify
the owner for the various fines the powers that be can think up

The main advantage is to be able to find the owners when
they are strays so they can be returned to the owners.

That is why many pole -who incidentally would like
their dogs returned - decide to chip voluntarily.

Yep, but it certainly helps to make it compulsory because
quite a few don't really think that stuff thru or plan to get
around to it sometime and never actually do that.

Those who don't care, or have deliberately turned the dog loose,
will simply say they sold the dog yesterday to a bloke in the pub.

And wont even bother to have the dog
microchipped even when its compulsory.

Whether its actually worth the immense cost of
microchipping all dogs tho is another matter entirely.

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be
to have a dog licence handled like DVLA with cars.

We havent seen that here, and we have had compulsory
microchipping for years now.

The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that they saw
this whole business as an opportunity to create a new
revenue stream for "other animal welfare issues".

That hasn't happened here, whatever the RSPCA wants.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:08:03 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:02:30 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:12:10 +0100, Alan
wrote:

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17807349

And does anyone believe it will make any difference? How many postal
workers have been bitten whilst walking in the street. I suspect that if
they are bitten/attacked it will when delivering to a property

I worked as a postie for a very short time. Some dogs used to try and
bite my hands when I was pushing the letters through the letterbox. I
made sure those letters were heavily chewed.

Given that you only have a right to deliver letters and not enter the
house you should have obeyed the guidelines laid down by Royal Mail
and kept your fingers on the outside of the door.

I was not aware of the guidelines but I did try and keep my fingers
outside the door. It's not always possible with small letters and
many dogs mouths are small enough to poke outside a large letterbox.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

In message , Tim Watts
writes
hugh wrote:

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".


New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did that stop?
When Thatcher was PM
--
hugh

Tim Watts wrote
hugh wrote

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog
licence handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local
radio admitted that they saw this whole business as an opportunity
to create a new revenue stream for "other animal welfare issues".

New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did that
stop?

That's nothing like DVLA with cars.

Not that that even works with cars, the worst of the reprobates don't bother
with it.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

hugh wrote:

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".

New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did that
stop?

Why should the RSPCA have any interest in dog licences.

Presumably they are hoping to grab some of what gets paid in dog licenses.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

hugh wrote:

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog
licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted
that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new
revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".

New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did that
stop?

Why should the RSPCA have any interest in dog licences.

Presumably they are hoping to grab some of what gets paid in dog
licenses.

Why should they get any of it?

Presumably they were hoping to con the govt into going that route.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

hugh wrote:

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog
licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".
New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did
that stop?

Why should the RSPCA have any interest in dog licences.

They didn't in the old dog licence scheme.

As I said they see the micro-chipping process and any related services
as a potential revenue stream.
--
hugh

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

hugh wrote:

And when it doesn't work the next excuse will be to have a dog licence
handled like DVLA with cars. The RSPCA on our local radio admitted that
they saw this whole business as an opportunity to create a new revenue
stream for "other animal welfare issues".

New? You used to have to buy a dog license from the PO - when did
that stop?

Why should the RSPCA have any interest in dog licences.
Presumably they are hoping to grab some of what gets paid in dog
licenses.

Why should they get any of it?

Why indeed, but that's what they are hoping for.
--
hugh

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:12:26 +0100, funkyoldcortina
wrote:

Up until about 12 weeks puppies have almost no fear! Everything is
interesting and fascinating to them. That's why you have to get the
socialisation done early, to take advantage of this natural curiosity and
allow them to associate the things they discover with positive experiences.

After about 12 weeks, things gradually start to spook them, so you have to
make more of an effort to ensure the puppy has positive experiences to avoid
them developing a lifelong irrational fear.

Sounds like she's starting to reach this stage now and the pushchair was
something new and ultra-freaky to her, with her reaction being that of
nervousness now, rather than inquisitiveness.

Certainly explains why some are freaked out by bicycles or men with
hard hats, ime.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:27:26 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:08:03 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

Given that you only have a right to deliver letters and not enter the
house you should have obeyed the guidelines laid down by Royal Mail
and kept your fingers on the outside of the door.

I was not aware of the guidelines.

I'm only quoting what my postie says when I moan about his holiday
cover replacement not putting the post completely through the letter
box. The normal postie says he deliberately breaks these rules
because post gets wet and an open letterbox lets the weather in.
Don't think he bothers if the house has a dog though


--