Are dog parks good for your dog?

In most instances yes they are very good for your dog. And a great way to socialise your dog and give him/her plenty of physical and mental stimulation. However we must also understand dogs natural instincts, and understand why at times taking your dog to a dog park could be just asking for trouble.

As humans we live by completely different laws and rules than our canine friends. We must firstly remember that dogs are naturally territorial, and even though domesticated still live by pack instinct.

Dogs at an early age are taught social skills by adult dogs which includes how to behave within a dog pack, and how to relate to other dogs within and outside this pack. Many dog owners are teaching their young puppies totally unacceptable, anti-social and un-natural behaviour, due to a lack of understanding natural dog instincts and in some instances incorrect training methods.

When we are imprintng in a young puppy that it is ok to be assertive and charge up to family members, friends and strangers, jump all over them and demand attention, we are teaching our puppy incorrect canine social behaviour. Dogs in their natural environment within a pack are imprinted at a young age that there is a correct way to introduce yourself to another dog and correct social skills.

To many dogs that go to dog parks are entering these areas with the wrong state of mind and body language. Because many dogs have been conditioned at a young age that the correct way to socialise and introduce yourself is to go barreling in, display tense dominant and assertive body language and demand attention, these dogs are attracting the wrong type of attention when they enter these parks.

It only takes one dog displaying the wrong body language and project the wrong energy to come into a park full of well socialised dogs and the entire dynamics of the otherwise peaceful pack is disrupted.

Many owners that go to dog parks blame the other dog for becoming aggressive toward their dog, when in most circumstances it was their own dog coming into a pack projecting the wrong energy and displaying the wrong body language. The dog that just came into the pack doesn't even have to show any aggression to the other dogs, for there to be a shift in energy within the pack. When this new dog enters in an unacceptable way, then higher members of the pack within this park will have no choice but to deal with this situation and challenge this new dog.

It is so important that we as the senior pack members, imprint into our young puppies acceptable behaviour when introducing itself to other members of its pack (family) or friends and strangers that come into the pack.

So many times I have seen a well intentioned dog owner bring a dog into a dog park, their dog goes charging into the pack of dogs and demands attention from the dogs, projecting overly dominant and assertive body language (as that is how it has been conditioned to react at home). This dog is then challenged by a senior ranking member of this pack because of its behaviour. Now because this new dog has never been taught the correct social skill of knowing how to introduce itself correctly to pack members and more importantly how to submit naturally to a higher ranking dog when it was a puppy, it fights back in defence.

Hence we now have a dog fight. The fight is broken up, the owner of this dog berrates the owner of the other dog for having an aggressive dog in a park, and leaves the park angry and upset, and in many cases reporting this dogs owner to the council for owning an aggressive dog. This well intentioned dog owner, not understanding dogs natural instincts, does not realise that it was his/her dog that upset the entire dynamics of this otherwise peaceful park, and created the challenge that took place.

Teaching young puppies correct social skills at an early age is just so important. It saddens me that so many dogs each year are put to sleep due to incorrect puppy imprinting and due to being taught unacceptable canine social skills.

So I do have issues with dog parks, and believe that until we again start using mother natures natural laws to imprint correct social behaviour in young puppies, dog parks can become a very unsafe place for many dogs to socialise.

Remember, we as pack leader for our dog must take on the role as teacher and teach our puppies acceptable social skills, not just what we consider as acceptable in our own home, or what is best for us, but what is naturally accepted and best for canines in their natural state.

I don't believe that time out actually works in correcting unwanted behaviour in a lot of cases, but yes agree if used correctly may help with some behaviour problems. Firstly a dogs focus is totally in the present. There is about a 1.5 second window for either rewarding a dog for correct behaviour, or correcting for unwanted behaviour. The problem I have with this form of ‘punishment’, is that the time delay between the act and the consequence could be delayed to much for the dog to associate banishment or being ostracised from its pack for the behaviour it was actually carrying out. Sure many dogs that have bonded strongly with their pack do not like being pushed away from the pack it belongs too, and usually after a period of banishment come back into the pack more subdued. But I do not believe that the dog actually associates this form of punishment with its actions. If for example your dog is doing something wrong, so you take him to time out. How do we know the dog is not associating banishment with being picked up (or being led out) and taken to another room for time out?

I went to a clients house that had a problem with her dog continually running away from her, nearly every time she went towards the dog. Sometimes the dog was ok..other times it would just run away. The dog began to read the owners body language, and even if the owner wasn’t going to do time out, but was a little tense the dog would back away fearing time out. So the dog started associating tense body language with being ostracised so then would run off. Now this made the owner angry, so when she caught the dog she would banish the dog for running away. What was happening then, the dog was trying to make it harder for the owner to catch it.. so the owner got more angry. If she couldn’t catch the dog she gave up. Dog wins for avoiding her. This became a vicious cycle. My answer to her was to stop time out, as for one thing I wasn’t totally convinced it actually worked the way some think. I also instructed her on how important her own body language was to her dog, and that her dog was picking up minute changes in her body. My philosophy with my clients if trying to correct a dog for unwanted behaviour and you miss the 1.5 second window, don’t correct your dog..it’s too late.

Its amazing how many people I see go mad at their dog, the dog runs off, the owner chases, the dog enjoys this chase, plus also gets a sense of controlling the situation. Then owner finally catches the dog and goes mad at it.. What are we telling the dog? It’s fun to chase and you are in control, but not so much fun to get caught and you loose control. Next time the dog will try harder to not get caught, or if it has a strong social aggression will eventually turn and growl and/or snap to assert dominance or to keep control, because it doesn’t want to loose control by being caught….. Now hasn’t the owner just created more behavioural problems? So please be careful how and when you administer punishment, even if its just with time out….

At the top of the list for my home consultations, is for the dog that once visitors enter the house, the owners dog circles around the visitor barking insessantly (and in some instances showing aggression), not daring to go close, except in some cases where the dog will run up behind the visitor and give them a quick nip on the back of the leg and retreat immediately to a safe distance and keeps barking.

This dog in most cases is a dog that has been given the role of leader and therefore control of its territory in the house, but is not capable of carrying out this role, due to its submissive temperament. Dogs that are given the role of leader in a house, but are not capable of carrying out this role, tend to become very insecure when placed in circumstances such as the one outlined above, or where they feel their territory is being threatened.

Many owners allow their dogs to dominate and control the house, and then wonder why their dog carries on like this when visitors arrive. Not only is it not a nice situation for the visitors, it is also very stressful on the poor dog.

All dogs seek leadership, especially those not capable of leading. Yet so many owners condition their dog to believe there is no leader so it (the dog) must take on the role. Instinct tells the dog, that there must be a strong leader, for the continued survival of the pack. A dog that seeks leadership, yet is placed in a position where it has no choice but to be the leader will become very insecure in many situations as for example when visitors come over.

I also see this insecurity in humans as well. Some people are placed in a position to lead, yet do not have the psychological makeup to be a leader, and therefore become very insecure leaders.

Some people and dog owners see this behaviour as funny, and laugh for awhile while the dog runs around the visitor barking. The owner either eventually puts the dog outside, or goes mad at the dog. Many do not realise how stressed a dog can be in this situation, as in the dogs mind, this is a very serious situation that it doesn't know how to control.

Instinctive lower pack dogs that are not shown leadership can become very insecure, and in some cases become dangerous dogs. Dogs that are confident very rarely show aggression, attack or bite people. Dogs that are insecure as outlined above can very quickly have their behaviour modified by the owner just by taking on a leadership role. In many cases a dogs change in behaviour happens almost immediately, as it becomes confident knowing it now has a leader to take charge. Therefore a MUCH happier and confident dog.

It is imperative that dog owners show their dogs leadership, set rules and bounderies, and maintain discipline. Dogs need leadership, or in many cases as outlined above become very nervous and insecure dogs, and possibly even dangerous.

I wonder how many dogs are put to death each year due to this aggressive behaviour, when all the dog seeks is for leadership from its owners?

• Dominance-related aggression is one of the most common types of canine aggression that behaviourists treat. The aggressive acts are directed toward one or several family members or other household pets. Dogs are pack animals, and they relate to humans as members of their own species and pack members.
  
  
• Territorial aggression is directed toward approaching animals or people outside of the pack in defence of a dog's area (home, room or yard), owner or fellow pack member.
  
  
• Inter-male aggression between adult males usually involves territorial or dominance disputes. Inter-female aggression occurs most frequently between adult females living in the same household.
  
  
• Predatory aggression is directed toward anything that the dog considers prey, usually other species, but sometimes any quick-moving stimulus, like a car or bike.
  
  
• Pain-induced aggression is caused by a person or animal that causes pain. It often occurs when a person attempts to touch a painful area or when injections are given.
  
  
• Fear-induced aggression occurs when people or animals approach a fearful dog. This is common when the dog cannot escape, and is sometimes seen when an owner uses severe punishment. Active, unpredictable children may also stimulate this type of aggression.
  
  
• Maternal aggression is directed toward anyone that approaches a bitch with puppies or in false pregnancy.
  
  
• Redirected aggression occurs when a dog that is aggressively motivated redirects the aggression from the source to another. For example, a dog that is barking at the door may redirect his aggression onto an owner that is pulling him back. Dominant dogs often redirect onto subordinates.

This is a submission I put forward to help support a collegue in her submission to the victorian Government to have the ban on prong collars in Victoria lifted.

SUBMISSION TO VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT

Natural Communication with Canines and the Pressure Point Collar

I am presenting this submission to support [name witheld] submission in regards to the Victorian Governments ban on the Pressure Point Collar (PP Collar), AKA: Prong Collar, Pinch Collar.

Firstly I would like to address the dangers that the Victorian Government has in their wisdom stated are inherent in regards to the use of the PPC.

The Victorian Government have decided that these collars are designed, to quote the Honourable Minister Mr Bob Cameron, “cut into a dogs neck when pulling on the leash” In over 28 years of training dogs in a professional manner, and with a background in police dogs and specialising in dominance and dog aggression, I have not once in all these years seen a dogs neck cut by using a PP Collar.

I have over the years prescribed the use of these collars, and have as yet had anyone complain to me that the collar caused any damage to a dog’s neck. On the contrary all have praised the workings of this collar.

Of all the dog owners that I have prescribed these collars to, at least 90% have found them very effective in helping them gain control of an otherwise unruly or head strong dog and without causing the dog any trauma or injury.

Why is a PP Collar so effective?

The PP Collar is designed to imitate the pressure applied when a dog is correcting or dominating another dog. Dogs instinctively apply pressure to the neck of subordinate dogs in an act of dominance and to correct unwanted behaviour. Mothers correct their pups in the same manner. Just as a dog does not apply enough pressure to penetrate the skin of the subordinate dog, either is the PP Collar designed to act in such a manner. The collar, because of the way it is designed places pressure on the dog’s neck in much the same way a dog places pressure on a subordinate dog. Dogs instinctively understand this form of correction, as they have been using this type of correction for tens of thousands of years. Most carnivorous pack animals use this type of correction on subordinate pack members to maintain control and maintain its position within the pack.

These collars are one of the most humane and natural ways of establishing in the dogs mind that the human owner is higher in the pack, because of this natural instinct inherent in all canines.

If it wasn’t for me recommending the PP Collar to many of my clients, I know that many of these dogs would most probably not be alive today. Many had tried other training equipment such as correction chains, halter’s, etc, and other training methods such a food based totally positive methods, all to no avail.

I feel the number one reason the Victorian Government has decided to ban these collars, is due to emotive pressure placed on them by animal welfare groups that have no scientific basis for their claims. I am sure if anyone challenged these welfare groups in a court of law, as for example the case in the Melbourne Supreme Court, ’ Innotek vs RSPCA in regards to static pulse collars’, enough evidence would be produced to discredit all of the negative emotive information that has been put out by these groups in regard to these collars. But unfortunately as there is no individual or company in Australia that has a vested interest in the manufacture or supply of these collars, no challenge in a court of law will happen. The Victorian Government are being guided and advised by people/groups that have no professional experience in the use of these collars, nor a total understanding of the theory behind why these collars work and are so effective. If the RSPCA were so wrong in regards to static pulse collars as was proven in a court of law, isn’t it quite possible that they are wrong in regards to the PP Collar as well?

Can these collars be used in an abusive manner?
Yes, of course they can and so can an ordinary flat collar. Anything, no matter what its function or how safe it is, can be used in an abusive manner.

I have seen so many dog owners being inadvertently abusive to their dog using equipment that is recommended by the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups, and that are legal in Victoria. I have seen dogs wearing halter’s having their head whipped around by the owner causing pain. It has also been scientifically proven that skeletal and muscle damage to the neck area is highly likely when collars such as halters are used incorrectly due to their poor design.

I have seen dog owners walking their dogs down the street choking their dog and the dog virtually unable to breathe correctly due to incorrect use of correction chains. I have seen wounds from correction chains used incorrectly, dogs with red raw necks, and even bleeding from these wounds. It has also been scientifically proven that the incorrect use of correction chains can cause permanent damage to the tracheal and oesophageal. Yet this training equipment is legal and supported by the Victorian Government.

I for one would like to know what scientific study the Victorian Government used or referred to, to support their claim that the proper use of the PP Collar is cruel and will cause the collar to cut into the dogs neck when used correctly? And why these same rules for making these decisions were not also used in regards to other training equipment such as halter’s and correction chains?

Points to consider

1. PP Collars do not choke a dog or cause damage to the tracheal and oesophageal even if used incorrectly, as correction/choker chains have been proven to cause.

2. PP Collars cannot whip a dogs head to the side causing muscle and skeletal damage to the neck, even if used incorrectly, as halter’s have been proven to cause.

3. The amount of force required to puncture or cut into a dog’s neck (as suggested by the Honourable Mr Bob Cameron) with a PP Collar is immense. This same amount of force if used with a halter or correction chain would cause immense trauma and injury to the dog.

4. The PP Collar is designed to imitate a dogs natural instincts, and therefore if used correctly is a very humane and effective way to control a dog.

If the Victorian Government is basing their decision to ban PP Collars not on scientific research but on emotions, and due to that fact that they can be used abusively, then the Government really needs to look at every area of human society, and ban anything that can be used in an abusive manner. We don’t ban cars because they can be used abusively, yet look how many people are killed or maimed every year by this equipment.

The Victorian Government should be looking at how the equipment is designed to be used correctly, and not how it could be used incorrectly or abusively. I wholeheartedly agree that anyone found being abusive with any collar on a dog should be prosecuted. I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for walking their dog down the street with their dog choking on a correction chain. Or the owner that whips their dogs head to the side using a halter. Isn’t this abuse? Why haven’t we heard of one RSPCA case of them prosecuting a dog owner for being abusive in such a way with their dog?

No professional dog trainer or behaviourist would promote or recommend any training equipment that was cruel to dogs. Why would this be in our own self interest? Our number one priority as professionals is to help educate and guide dog owners in responsible dog ownership. To help dog owners gain control of their beloved dog in the most humane way possible, and to ensure as many dogs as possible don’t end up in an animal shelter due to unwanted behaviour. The reason we as professional dog trainers and behaviourists chose this profession is due to our immense love for canines, and to promote responsible dog ownership and training. It saddens me that inexperienced people that don’t have the required knowledge in this area of expertise are making decisions for professionals in their field.

I believe a proper scientific study should be made on this collar before any emotive decision is made in regards to their use. Thousands of Australian dog owners have turned to the PP Collar as the only humane means they had available to control their dog. Are all these people so wrong, and lack bad judgement? Are the hundreds of dog trainers/behaviourists and Vets around Australia so out of step with society as to recommend a tool that was designed to be abusive?

I as a professional dog trainer and behaviourist sincerely and wholeheartedly support [name witheld] submission to the Government of Victoria to have this ban on the PP Collar lifted.

Mark Singer

February 3rd 2008