i wonder if anyone has advice for my son.he has a mongrel neutered dog which he got from a rescue centre 4 years ago. the dog was supposed to be about a year old then. despite vet help, psychiatric help
from the rescue centre and various other sources who offer different advice, the dog barks, sometimes for 10-15 minutes at a time..they try ignoring, no eye contact, sometimes this works,but as soon as someone talks to him, he gets excited and off he goes again..someone suggested obedience classes..but my son is reluctant to subject people to the annoyance of Manny.on the lead, he is great, he loves people and other dogs, cats etc.,but the barking is very stressful for them all.. we have two rescue dogs ourselves and they leave the room when he gets going..watersprays he thinks are brilliant, he just seems to have a problem stopping himself from barking, even when he is told off. has anyone any help to offer?

Kipper so sorry but you seem to have done all you can , seems you are stuck with it. I cant think of any other way of stopping him from barking
did not want to leave you without the curtesy of a reply best wishes mari

Has your son tried a Master Plus collar they are expencive but can be hired I think, I have found they do work because you don't have to look or speak to them and even if spraying water makes them worse the collar does not. Jackie H

Have you tried the complete oposite of what you have been told.
When the dog barks. Hold him by the collar and make him have eye contact with you. Keep him focused on your face and calm voice.
He may just need to learn how to calm down. My sister had a mongrel
dog much the same and i know it sounds daft but her husband used to hold him on the floor and the dog did learn to calm down.

What help did the behaviourist offer? Just ignoring the dog etc? Have they tried giving him something like Rescue Remedy to keep him calm? You could also try teaching the dog to speak on command by rewarding him when he does it, and then getting him to stop by not rewarding him if he does it when you've not told him to speak. Sounds a bit odd, but it does work.

K

Valarian is a good flower remedy for 'hyper' type behaviour. I'd avoid head to head confrontations as this can be a good way of finding out just how much of a 'boss' dog he thinks he is (and it could be painful).

Re obedience lessons - they are used to all sorts of manic dogs, and a barking one is just par for the course, so don't worry about that. By teaching him some basic obedience you can give him an alternative behaviour (that will earn him a treat) to do when he starts barking (which doesn't earn a treat). I think that's the route I'd take. Missy used to bark at all sorts of inapropriate things when we first got her, so we taught ther the command 'bed' and when she barked we'd thank her and tell her 'bed' and reward the action of going to her bed. She's a lot calmer now but is still a good house dog :-)

HTH

Fran

When the dog barks for 10 to 15 minutes at a time, what is he doing? For instance, is he just barking in the garden, out the window, or is he lookkng at you? Just wondered!

Lindsay

No one can answer the problem of a dog barking by email, beyond suggesting mechanical behaviour modification aids, which might or might not work.
I think the best advice anyone can give is this:
If you choose to accept some kind of training instructor, regardless of what title they give themselves (psychiatrist, therapist, behaviourist and many dozens of etc's) you must get them to draw up and sign a contract with the clause 'no sustained result, no fee'.
From the scant info you have given the barking sounds like it is the pack drive originated, whether it is or is not you state that the dog is barking in your presence. The only possible conclusion to that is that the dog is not appropriately trained to its specific needs consequently, and as always, it is dominant and rank order in the pack is inappropriate.
The cause of the problem is quite simple, the dog is not properly trained. A training course with someone who trains dogs to a professional level is also a training course for you, if you had been to a competent training class you would know the solution to the problem as education is inbuilt into lessons.
The same contract principle applies, no one should go to any training classes unless the trainer, be it dog handler, someone calling themselves behaviourists or any other meaningless title, offer a contract clearly stating no results, no fee.
If you have paid anyone a fee so far demand its return under the sale of goods act ‘Failing to provide a satisfactory service suitable for the purpose intended’ and put the money back into another trainer.

I'm interested in your 'terms and conditions' clause idea here - who would determine if the 'treatment' had been a success? I think it's far too open too abuse - if the client would not implement the advice, and then claim the results weren't acheived - not good for the trainer. And what classes as a 'sustained result'? A reduction in barking over a week? A month? A year? Should the dog never bark again? Ever?? Besides, a trainer experienced in obedience (for trials etc) training my have no idea on methods to modify this sort of behaviour. I also doubt very much that any court in the land would acccept a claim for a refund of fees paid to a trainer under the 'sale of goods act' - if the client failed to put the advice given into practise.........

To clarify my previous point and reply to ‘digger’.
Anyone providing any service is making an ‘offer’ of that service to another party.
In the case of dog training/management/behaviour modification/psychiatry or any other terminology which may be used, a client presents not just the dog but themselves as well.
If the person claiming to offer the service accepts the client then it is reasonable that the person offering the service has the necessary skills to assess that he/she is capable of carrying out what they claim they can do for that individual and their dog.
If they have asked for a fee and accepted that fee then it is reasonable to assume they have assessed that they can give the service claimed to the client and meet the requirements as stated by that client.
If the person making the offer of that service has failed to make an accurate assessment and the results they claim they can achieve by teaching/training that client are not achieved then it is reasonable to assume that the assessment was incorrect and they should not have accepted the client in the first place and the onus of responsibilty is with the person who made the offer.
No potential client should pay anyone any money until they are offered a no results no fee contract.
I stated quite clearly that kipper, the person with the barking dog, needs TRAINING lessons NOT treatment.
The term ‘treatment’ is nothing more than a commercial gimmick, sales talk designed to give the impression to people with inexperience (or who maybe have not previously taken enough interest)
the impression that they themselves are unable to deal with the situation, that something is ‘wrong’ with the dog and then charge the naïve owner an exorbitant fee and subsequently claim ‘the owner did not carry out the advice.’ when there is no improvement.
There is nothing in kippers email to suggest the barking is caused as a reaction to pain or some physical problem, therefor there is nothing ‘wrong’ with the dog.
The word ‘treatment’ departs the impression to the client that there is a cure, there can be no cure when nothing is wrong in the first place and in the case of kippers email the dog quite simply seems untrained.
Once a dog is trained and the handler adequately educated during that training the problem of inappropriate barking will cease, the problem is that of rank order and that is solved by training and educating the owner/handler.
Again in kippers case she needs educating and training, that is the only problem.

Its a bit late - but would it not then be fair for the 'trainer' to also require the client to agree to follow the trainers advice to the letter, and if they fail to do so then no refund would be given? After all - the trainer can only advise, not compel the client to follow instructions? It's been a long time since I read the original thread, but I seem to remember Kipper was not the owner/keeper of the dog, but a relative? On what do your base your assumption that there is no physical problem with the dog? Deafness isn't normally visable, but can often trigger bouts of barking with no obvious stimulus.........

Kipper does not say who was involved in any advice about the dog although here son owns it, her email is at the top of this list.
I base my assumption that there is no medical problem on the fact that the dog (a) Kipper implies it came from a rescue centre and they almost invariably carry out thorough veterinary tests (b) Kipper says the vet ‘helped her’ I assume the two combinations ruled out any physiological cause (c) There is nothing in kippers email to suggest there is any kind of physiological cause. (d) Some deaf dogs bark without obvious cause, some non-deaf dogs bark without obvious cause, some deaf dogs never bark without obvious cause, some non-deaf dogs never bark without obvious cause, there are NO facts to suggest that deafness in dogs causes bouts of barking any more than non-deaf dogs have bouts of barking, if so please point us all to them.
Kipper is subject to what is an all to common phenomena these days, namely commercially orientated titles specifically designed to mislead the public dogs need anything more than training.
This is her first dog and she simply does not realise that all dogs should be trained (a) to live compatibly within its pack i.e. the family and above all MUST be trained to a level which keeps it from falling foul of the 1991 Dangerous dogs act, especially sec 2 of that act of which kippers dog falls foul.
Kipper states the symptom of the problem i.e. unwarranted barking but then she states that a vet ‘helped’ her and then a dog psychiatrist ‘helped her’.
The people she has seen so far have NOT helped her in any way whatsoever, she still is not sure that the dog needs training in fact she is more confused as to what to do than prior to getting her first dog.
Worse than that she has not been told by either her vet or the person titling himself as dog psychiatrist that the title ‘Dog Psychiatrist’ ‘Behaviourist’ ‘Therapist’ etc etc are NOT an official titles at all, they are, in fact, the commercial title under which individuals set and register as self employed, these various titles have no meaning beyond that of running a small buisness at home.
Anyone of legal working age and who might never have had a dog or trained a dog in their lives can AND DO set up as ‘Dog Psychiatrists’ ‘Dog Therapists’ ‘Behaviourist’ it is perfectly legal for anyone to set up with these and many other commercial titles and quite clearly the so called ‘advice’ Kipper has received so far has done nothing for the dog lefty kipper in a confused state which did not exist before.
Unfortunatly kippers is a typical story. Once a vet has given the all clear as to the existance of any medical problems all dog problems are the result of poor training of the person and conseqenetly the dog, very often this is deliberatly done by some trainers in order that the poor owner comes back to spend more money at a later date, this in turn due the fact that they have been told ‘Your dog needs therapy’, no behaviour problem is in isolation, somewhere down the line the owner has not been trained properly.
There is nothing wrong with kippers, based on the reasons given above, this raises the question why did the person titling himself/herself dog psychiatrist not give her the appropriate education and training course she obviously needs, or her son as the case maybe, preferably both.
As regards ‘fair on the trainer’ etc. Anyone accepting a client for the purpose of bringing the person and their dog to a standard of interaction compatible with the well being of the dog and family has by implication accepted they can bring the person and dog to that acceptable standard. By accepting a client the trainer or whatever title has assessed himself herself of being capable of (a) Training that client (b) The client is of an intellectual and general disposition that they can be trained by the trainer, that is a part of the service.
Few clients who are given a training session can be accuratly assessed untill the second session, only then can the progress, or lack of it, of that individual client be seen. If there is no progress then it is clear the trainer/dog psychiatrist/therapist/behaviourist etc cannot deliver a service to that individual client, why should they get a fee for something they cannot do? In a small claims court it would undoubtedly be judged that it is unreasonable to charge for a service they cannot deliver