I have phone numbers for beddy rescues if you want?? Please consider a rescue Bedlington. Most of them are there through no fault of their own ie relationship breakups, owners going into rental properties etc.

PM if you are interested

My advice, for what it's worth:

Calls to consider a rescue dog are all well and good if you don't have young children. Rescue dogs can be unpredictable (any dog can, but this is never more true than when they have been mistreated) and I'd think carefully before having one around a very young child.

More generally, if you are going to buy a pedigree dog, look into the breed thoroughly. Too many people buy a dog because "they're cute" or "my nan had one", when they have little idea what owning a dog of that breed entails (not saying this applies to you, by the way). Look into exercise requirements, how well they cope with being left, suitability to children/other animals and known health problems associated with the breed. Labradors, for example, are known to be susceptible to hip dysplasia, so it's a good idea to make sure both parents have a good hip score before committing to a purchase. Whilst we're on the subject of labs, they kind of underline the point I was making above. People buy them because they look nice and have a good temperament, but few realise how much exercise they need. This is one of the reasons you see so many fat/overweight labs. Know your breed.

Never, ever use a puppy farm.

When you're looking for a breeder, try to go on a recommendation from someone you know and trust. If you don't know anyone with the breed you're looking for, try to contact any owners' clubs that may be about to see if they know any reputable breeders. Speak to the breeder before you visit to see if you can ascertain whether they know what they're talking about. You should never visit a breeder to view puppies until you are ready to commit - once you see a litter of puppies, it's very hard to walk away. A good breeder will never tire of you asking questions and will never try to avoid giving you the information you request. If they're being evasive, there's probably a reason for that. Insist on seeing where the puppies are kept, insist on seeing the mother, and make sure you get to look at the pedigree. If the same names appear more than once on the pedigree documents, walk away.

A lot of breeders will prepare a puppy pack for you including the dog's pedigree/KC registration, details of any injections it might have had, its feeding requirements and a sample of the food they've been using. Everything else you will be need to have prepared for when your puppy comes home. Prepare a check list of things you'll need and discuss (with reference to the Chicken's point above) what the puppy's boundaries will be (will it be allowed on the furniture, for example). Also agree on what commands you will give for any given scenario. For example, if the puppy tries to get onto the furniture, will you say "down" or "off"? Agree this in advance and stick to it.

Buy a crate. If your puppy is going to be left for any length of time (including overnight), a crate is invaluable. Essential, almost. Make sure it's kept warm and dry, in an area free from draughts and make it as inviting as possible for your puppy. Put toys in there and hide treats about the place so that it associates its crate with positive things. never use the crate as a punishment. Puppies are taught by their mothers at a very early age not to sh#t where they sleep, so it's very rare that a dog will soil its crate. This makes it a really useful tool for toilet training, as well as preventing your puppy from damaging your house when it's unsupervised. Both of my dogs were out of their crates within a few months, but I wouldn't be without one in the early stages.

Not much else to say, other than to reiterate what the Chicken said above. Dogs are pack animals and they need to know their place in the pack. That place should always be right at the bottom. A dog needs clear boundaries and it needs to know that every other living thing in your home is above it in the pecking order. This can be achieved by giving clear, consistent commands, and by making sure that all of the people in your house have an opportunity to give those commands. I made the mistake with our first dog of bailing the wife out every time the puppy chose to ignore her. This lead to the dog believing he only had to do as he was told once I stepped in. It takes a while to break this habit, so it's best not to allow it to develop in the first place.

Good luck, and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

This theory is outdated now. A group of captive wolves were studied in the 1960's and observed but they were bred captive and bear no relevance to the wild wolf. This has been scientifically proved. The behaviours shown in the study were completely different to wild wolves. A dog may be a pack animal but they do not need to know their place in the pack. Dogs do not need to be at the bottom. I do not wish to dominate my dogs. I guide them, show them with training, boundaries and whats acceptable and what isn't using positive reinforcement methods.

A good read is "In Defence of Dogs" by John Bradshaw. It explains it far better than I ever could.

More reading : "The Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson, "The Other End of the Leash" by Patricia B McConnell and "Bones Would Rain from the Sky" by Suzanne Clothier, for anyone interested in dog behaviour. For training I would recommend "Don't Shoot the Dog" clicker training by Karen Pryor.

Without wishing to divert down a different road

I'd be a bit wary of giving a dog any sort of leeway outside of the traditional "pack animal" approach and I'd agree with RGX that the puppy has to know that everyone else in the house takes priority - this is definitely not done by physical punishment but by voice level and intonation - the dog will read and understand every inflection of your voice as they are incredibly perceptive of this and of facial expressions (I'm sure you know this anyway) and also subtle things like the dog being fed after your family eat (with its own food), or you not allowing it to push past you when entering a room, or stopping barking when you tell it to - you've assessed what its perceives to be danger and you are telling it that its ok.

The point needs to be made too that the dog is happy with this, in any pack there is only one leader and the rest will quite happily follow it and many dogs will become anxious if there is not a leader to follow, I'm on my third German Shepherd now and they incredibly loyal and very sociable dogs but they need strong leadership, give them those guidelines and they will never be a problem to your family or to other families, too many of them are bought to bark at strangers and even show aggression, that's just plain wrong and is a fault in the ownership.

I have 3 cats, ideal for a busy lifestyle, leave water and food down and they look after themselves.
Cats are the way forward

Quote ="JerryChicken"Without wishing to divert down a different road I'd be a bit wary of giving a dog any sort of leeway outside of the traditional "pack animal" approach and I'd agree with RGX that the puppy has to know that everyone else in the house takes priority - this is definitely not done by physical punishment but by voice level and intonation - the dog will read and understand every inflection of your voice as they are incredibly perceptive of this and of facial expressions (I'm sure you know this anyway) and also subtle things like the dog being fed after your family eat (with its own food), or you not allowing it to push past you when entering a room, or stopping barking when you tell it to - you've assessed what its perceives to be danger and you are telling it that its ok. The point needs to be made too that the dog is happy with this, in any pack there is only one leader and the rest will quite happily follow it and many dogs will become anxious if there is not a leader to follow, I'm on my third German Shepherd now and they incredibly loyal and very sociable dogs but they need strong leadership, give them those guidelines and they will never be a problem to your family or to other families, too many of them are bought to bark at strangers and even show aggression, that's just plain wrong and is a fault in the ownership.'" www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues ... 416-1.html www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php www.k9magazine.com/understand-pa ... -stilwell/ www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die Just a few articles to back up my claim Whilst I agree with going out the door first, I only agree because the dog will be calmer and therefore safter. As for eating first, its been proved nonsense. Why would I eat before my dogs? This is where people go wrong if the dog is allowed to watch you eat first on an empty stomach. My dogs get fed before us and whilst we are eating they lay down as, sleepy, happy, satisfied, fully fed dogs. There is nothing wrong with showing dogs boundaries, its good etiquette and polite, but its now been proved nonsense to claim that you should be dominant over your dog(s).

Quote ="JerryChicken"Without wishing to divert down a different road I'd be a bit wary of giving a dog any sort of leeway outside of the traditional "pack animal" approach and I'd agree with RGX that the puppy has to know that everyone else in the house takes priority - this is definitely not done by physical punishment but by voice level and intonation - the dog will read and understand every inflection of your voice as they are incredibly perceptive of this and of facial expressions (I'm sure you know this anyway) and also subtle things like the dog being fed after your family eat (with its own food), or you not allowing it to push past you when entering a room, or stopping barking when you tell it to - you've assessed what its perceives to be danger and you are telling it that its ok. The point needs to be made too that the dog is happy with this, in any pack there is only one leader and the rest will quite happily follow it and many dogs will become anxious if there is not a leader to follow, I'm on my third German Shepherd now and they incredibly loyal and very sociable dogs but they need strong leadership, give them those guidelines and they will never be a problem to your family or to other families, too many of them are bought to bark at strangers and even show aggression, that's just plain wrong and is a fault in the ownership.'" www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues ... 416-1.html www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/why-not-dominance.php www.k9magazine.com/understand-pa ... -stilwell/ www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die Just a few articles to back up my claim Whilst I agree with going out the door first, I only agree because the dog will be calmer and therefore safter. As for eating first, its been proved nonsense. Why would I eat before my dogs? This is where people go wrong if the dog is allowed to watch you eat first on an empty stomach. My dogs get fed before us and whilst we are eating they lay down as, sleepy, happy, satisfied, fully fed dogs. There is nothing wrong with showing dogs boundaries, its good etiquette and polite, but its now been proved nonsense to claim that you should be dominant over your dog(s).

Our dog (well my dog) knows I'm the gaffer. I use simple commands: sit, walk, hold, drop, down etc. Whereas Emma almost tries to hold a conversation with him, I can only imagine that all he hears is similar to Bart Simpson's Santa's Little Helper. If she tells him to do something when I'm around, he invariably looks to me for approval.

He's not an aggressive dog but for some reason he doesn't particularly like young (8-10 years) blonde girls. If one approaches him he simply turns away and utters a barely audible growl. He's rarely out of my sight and I honestly can't remember him ever being mistreated by a young blonde girl in the past. Mind you, the only dog he's ever gone for is a black standard poodle, clipped to show standards, that we sometimes see at Cheddar car boot. I put that down to some latent hatred of poofs

Quote ="Hull White Star" www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die '" I've only read this one so far but this para is, I believe, really important ... [iFamily life can also be remarkably inconsistent for a pet, and dogs may focus their efforts on resources that are extremely important to them, but not necessarily to the owner. Lack of consistency proves to the dog that they are capable of deciding the outcome of many, albeit small, interactions. Add in the effects of either a bold or shy character, and other inherited predispositions that need to be satisfied, and you have a dog that can be extremely resistant to their owner’s efforts to control their behaviour.[/i To be honest most of the rest of it is "sort of" going along with the "dominant" theory if not the extremes then certainly the ethos that you are in control and that most dogs will go along with that, it doesn't mean that you behave like a police dog controller (I've got two family members and a close friend who are and they still take the dominance approach to extremes) but, for instance, when I take mine out in the park every morning we do two circuits and he trots on in front off the lead but HAS to follow what I ask him to do - he'll often try and head back to the car park after one circuit because he still has anxieties from being abandoned as a young dog, I'll call him once and then walk off, his choice is then to follow me which he always does and we've now got this down to hand signals only - he is submitting to my will rather than run back to the car which is what I know he wants to do (you have to see the approach of a panic attack when his abandonment issue creeps in, it heartbreaking to watch him). The recent documentary on TV with Martin Clunes on dog behavior and how it was linked to their natural senses was very interesting, watching your dog watching you for signals is fascinating, when we first visited the Dogs Trust it was to look at rehoming a deaf Dalmation (a common breed problem) and I wondered how the hell you'd control a deaf dog off the lead, I think I could probably do it now with my dog.

Quote ="Hull White Star" www.apbc.org.uk/articles/why-wont-dominance-die '" I've only read this one so far but this para is, I believe, really important ... [iFamily life can also be remarkably inconsistent for a pet, and dogs may focus their efforts on resources that are extremely important to them, but not necessarily to the owner. Lack of consistency proves to the dog that they are capable of deciding the outcome of many, albeit small, interactions. Add in the effects of either a bold or shy character, and other inherited predispositions that need to be satisfied, and you have a dog that can be extremely resistant to their owner’s efforts to control their behaviour.[/i To be honest most of the rest of it is "sort of" going along with the "dominant" theory if not the extremes then certainly the ethos that you are in control and that most dogs will go along with that, it doesn't mean that you behave like a police dog controller (I've got two family members and a close friend who are and they still take the dominance approach to extremes) but, for instance, when I take mine out in the park every morning we do two circuits and he trots on in front off the lead but HAS to follow what I ask him to do - he'll often try and head back to the car park after one circuit because he still has anxieties from being abandoned as a young dog, I'll call him once and then walk off, his choice is then to follow me which he always does and we've now got this down to hand signals only - he is submitting to my will rather than run back to the car which is what I know he wants to do (you have to see the approach of a panic attack when his abandonment issue creeps in, it heartbreaking to watch him). The recent documentary on TV with Martin Clunes on dog behavior and how it was linked to their natural senses was very interesting, watching your dog watching you for signals is fascinating, when we first visited the Dogs Trust it was to look at rehoming a deaf Dalmation (a common breed problem) and I wondered how the hell you'd control a deaf dog off the lead, I think I could probably do it now with my dog.

I've taught mine to look at me in certain situations like if there is a dog coming up on lead or passing an area I don't want them to go in, that sort of thing (diversion technique). Now all they have to see is a dog on lead and they are looking at me waiting for the treat and when I am passing the park area that I don't want them to go in, they stop and wait for me without direction from me to put their leads on. As soon as leads are off they are looking at me again waiting for me to say "off you go then" before they go off doing their own thing again.

As you probably know I have Karens dog (Sully) sometimes (its going to be Tilly next time, yay!) and I can watch Sully and my lurcher Molly play for hours on end. Its fascinating watching their body language and behaviour, for me anyways

With respect, this is nonsense. A dog that thinks it is above any of the people in its household is a potentially dangerous dog. It needs to know who is in charge.



And? Where did I say any other? You are guiding them, giving them boundaries and showing them what's acceptable - that ought to include that it must obey all of the humans in your household. If it feels it is 'above' any of the humans in your household, it will choose not to obey them if it sees fit. You don't have to 'dominate' a dog for it to know its place.

Read my links. The Association of Pet Behaviour Councillors and Victoria Stillwell amongst others disagree with you.

Thanks for all of the advice.

Some really useful stuff that will help us to bring up the dog correctly.

All your links show is that it's not necessary to 'dominate' a dog in order to train it correctly. There's no need to use force or aggression. Just because dogs don't 'plan' how they might move up the hierarchy in their families, doesn't mean to say the dog doesn't need to know its place. A dog needs to know that it obeys ALL of the humans in your household.

From the [url=http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/458Kennel Club[/url website:

[i"Help your puppy find its [uplace in the hierarchy[/u

[uPuppies need to learn their place in the human pack[/u. Strong-willed puppies need to learn that they cannot have their own way all the time and what you want must come first."[/i

From [url=http://www.trainyourpuppy.co.uk/puppy-preparations/rules-of-the-household.php#preparationsTrain Your Puppy[/url:

"A dog must not control the household in any manner. Rules need to be established and followed consistently by all family members and visitors to the home. This is especially true for puppies. It is most important for puppies for toilet training and safety purposes, in addition to [usetting the hierarchy within the home[/u."

You and the Kennel Club have your opinion and I and many others have ours. A dog knows that we are not dogs therefore there is no reason to establish a "hierarchy" within the home imo. If you believe a dog wants to "control your home" you believe your dog is being dominant over you and imo and in the opinion of the links I have provided that is not the case. If you watch my two in my home you would say my staffy cross is more "dominant" over my lurcher. If you watch my two whilst out in the country on a walk my lurcher is more "dominant" sniffing out rabbit holes and leading the scenting whilst my staffy "follows". My dogs do what they do because a) I have taught them, b) they want to and c) they respect me, not because they want to "control my home".

Just to add one more thing - I've seen/owned two dogs who believed that they dominated our home, one was a GSD cross bitch who did what she wanted, where she wanted, showed aggression randomly and for no apparent reason, soiled in the house randomly and for no apparent reason when otherwise she was house trained - we had her put to sleep after 12 months because she was simply uncontrollable and I suspect was mentally damaged.

The other was a Shih Tzu male puppy that we were fostering until a permanent home could be found, when I read up on the breed it said that one of the characteristics was a dog which punches above its weight and likes to follow its own will and the one we had certainly did that, it was seriously a very dominant dog for something that you'd tread on and not notice, I've always had big dogs and apart from the one mad one never met a dog like that Shih Tzu, it just didn't want to socialise with us at all and made life hell for our old golden retriever who by then was 13 years old and starting to suffer from cancer - fortunately the little (zuh) found a woman who was familiar with the breed and she admitted that they could be very dominant if allowed and were far from being an old ladies dog as most people view them.

You have read a few web links, not understood them properly, and formed an opinion based on that. Your links say that dominance-based training methods are unhelpful and unnecessary, and that a positive, reward-based method is preferable. I haven't once disagreed with any of that. But what the links don't say is that a dog doesn't need to 'know its place'. A dog needs to know that the humans in its home are to be obeyed.



What difference does it make whether it thinks we are dogs or not? A dog will only obey a person that it feels subservient to. This is true of any animal in any family unit, including humans. If the dog believes it is superior to any of the humans in its home, it may choose not to obey them. I'm sure I don't have to explain the potential consequences of this.



No. The links you provided state that a dog doesn't [iplan[/i to rise up the hierarchy by displaying dominant behaviour. It's not calculated in that way. But if the dog doesn't have clear boundaries, and doesn't know who is in charge, then it may become disobedient and display dominant behaviour. Chicken and egg, see? Unless, of course, you're asserting that no dog ever displays such behaviour?



Eh? Where have I said that your dogs want to control your home? And what you have written above kind of illustrates the point I am making. You have taught them, they want to please you (as their leader) and they respect you (as their leader). They know their place. If you hadn't taught them that you are the boss they wouldn't do as you say, because they would have no reason to. It's really not difficult to understand.

Not really. I subscribe to dog magazines, take part in dog forums, read updated books, volunteer dog advice for a charity, liase with an ABDP behaviourist on a regular basis and watch and learn from my own dogs. My opinion has been formed on scientific facts that there is no basis for a dog hierarchy in the home, dogs know we are not dogs therefore we do not need to behave like one (eating before them as a supposed alpha male dog would etc).

FFS. I have never said that dogs do not know that humans are not dogs. I have never said we should behave like dogs. I have never said we should eat before them. What I have said is that a dog needs to know its place in the home. It needs to know that the humans in its home must be obeyed. A dog that does not know it needs to obey its human masters is an unruly dog. There is a distinct difference between 'dominating' a dog and letting it know who is in charge.

And the point I'm making is there is now a different way of thinking and methods to (in your words) "letting the dog know who is in charge".

Your point is absolute nonsense. The dog needs to know who is in charge, or it simply won't obey. Are you seriously suggesting that a dog follows a command because it feels like it? It does so because it sees you as its 'master' or 'leader' and because it seeks the positive response that comes from pleasing you.

And as for methods, I've made clear on several occasions that I don't support 'dominance' or aggression based training techniques, and that I do support positive, rewards-based techniques. Unless you have massive deficiencies in your ability to read and comprehend simple English, I'm struggling to see what you're finding so difficult to understand.

FFS you've both got a dog/dogs. You each have differing views on how a dog should be trained and developed. Can't you just agree not to look after each others' dogs and move on?

No I'm suggesting a dog follows a command because in P+ it knows its going to get rewarded for that behviour. Explain this then; my behviourist came down to my house the other week and within 5 minutes she had taught them a new clicker move. Did my dogs follow that command because they think she is their new "master" who must be obeyed or did they follow that command because they will be getting a reward??

Anyway, Coddys right, I will continue to read and educate myself on the updated methods and you continue in your belief. One thing we agree on, p+ is the way to go



ps As long as he doesn't have a great dane or a mastiff I would gladly look after Rock Gods dog (s) if the need arise

No, we don't. I have never once disagreed with her assertion that positive training is best.

Fucksake. Your dog obeys commands because they see themselves as being subservient to (certain) humans. Your 'behaviourist' will be included in this because they know how to deal with dogs and because, presumably, they have taken commands from her before. Yes, they know they're going to be rewarded, but (and try to read this very slowly so that you understand) the very process of saying 'do what I say and I'll give you a tit bit' is very much a part of establishing/reinforcing the fact that you hold the authority.



You seem to be incapable of reading anything, much less understanding it. For the final time, [uI have never once disputed the methods[/u.

And I have not said that you dispute positive reward base methods have I, in in fact I have agreed and acknowledged that we both use these methods. [u You[/u seem to be missing my point that there are new beliefs out there that disagree with your method of "being the boss" and why dogs behave in certain ways. No where in my posts have I disputed you are against +R.

We are going around in circles here. We both believe in positive reward based methods, agreed? We both disagree on why dogs behave in a certain way for humans, agreed? I have put my point across on why I disagree with your "showing whos boss", you have put your point across on why you think you need to "show them who's boss", agreed? I respect your opinion and why you think that way (I used to until I read many different articles by many different trainers), but I like to think a different way. Many others believe your way, many others believe my way. Do we need to carry this on?