# somebody[ies?] on Vic Stilwell's crew got it WRONG; a form-letter won't make it RIGHT



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> _ Dear XXXXX,
> 
> Thanks for your message (we did not receive any e-mail from you other than the one below).
> We're sorry that the recent episode of *It's Me or the Dog* which included trainers from K9-1
> ...


i can understand that she does not always *know* who is being selected as a 3rd-party guest - 
i *cannot* understand how a form-letter could claim that having 2 trainers who use flooding, choke-chains, 
prongs & coercion to *"treat"* or to *"prevent"* unwanted behavior *does not deliver a mixed-message 
to the viewing audience.*

the show focused on keeping kids safe from dog-bites. 
there are so many highly-regarded reward-based alternatives to K9-1 that it's inconceivable to me 
that someone did not suggest, promote, etc, these guys... *Dogs & Storks* or *Doggone Safe* 
or *Colleen Pelar* are all much higher-profile, nationally known programs in the USA.

i'm stunned. :blink: absolutely stunned. *someone* who chose these fellas as the show's special-guests 
should be, IMO, fired - for making such an enormous, embarrassing, co$tly mistake, which will generate 
public apologies for months if not years.

the production-crew of *It's Me Or The Dog* needs to grasp the essential concepts of pos-R, 
so that no future major-conflicts of ethics & interests occur between the show's values & their *guests'* values.

:thumbdown: bad weeding process, poor selection, weak excuses.

IMO a full & frank, _"oops, we made a serious error, :nonod: & we're sorry to say that So-&-So will not choose 
our guests in the future...",_ would have been much more forthcoming.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

I haven't seen any of the US shows - what happened? They had aversive trainers on there?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Pawsitive said:


> ...They had aversive trainers on there?


see any of the many videos on UTube posted by k9-1. 
shock-collars, prong-collars, choke-chains, flooding, IMO deliberate provocation -

and cooing _'good dog...'_ while shoving one's leather-gauntleted hand into the food bowl 
*does not* make it reward-based or positive-reinforcement training, when the dog is well-known 
to resource guard.

that is a sting-operation; teaching a dog learned helplessness - [_'we can do this & growls won't stop us...'_] -
is NOT helpful, as the dog learns that growling is pointless; *we have now removed the warning system 
& the dog will go direct to "bite" without bothering to growl.* growls are valuable communication; 
they are to be *heeded* IMO, not extinguished.

that they trained *with reward-based methods while on her show* does not alter their _modus operandi_.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

eek :s totally agree that she needs to be more careful (and more involved!) with who comes on the show as a trainer. (Especially seeing as it's likely people will obviously approach them afterwards to train their own dogs).

Not a very good response from her people either :S


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Pawsitive said:


> ...she needs to be more careful (and more involved!) with who comes on the show as a trainer.
> Especially seeing as it's likely people will obviously approach them afterward to train their own dogs.


Yes - the 'bragging rights' is not at all as silly or minimal a concern as that letter makes it seem. 
claiming that she "endorses" their training is probably more than they could get away with, 
but claiming she endorsed their BITE PREVENTION program specifically is not.

she announced their names, biz-name & location during the show - whether that was verbally, 
text on the screen, signage at the door?... i have no idea; i don't get _Animal Planet_ & didn't see it.

that she'd run a mile the other way if approached about 'endorsing' their *behavior modification* 
will never occur to most potential customers; they'll only see her name & make the association. 
*they will EXPECT reward-based, positive-reinforcement, coercion-free methods.*



Pawsitive said:


> Not a very good response from her people either :S


no - very inadequate IMO, & no assurance that there won't be major bloopers in the future.


----------



## lucysnewmum (Feb 25, 2010)

its television....designed to entertain and keep the ratings up!!!!

as with all television trainers everything seen or heard should not be taken as gospel.....but the ideals behind the programme should be thoroughly researched before being put into practise...


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

I've wathced her series and I get e-mail blogs from her. She has in the past in the UK series, used fridge magnets with the photo's of faces of the family and shown how the structure is. I.e. dog at the top mum dad and kids below and then gone onto say that the training will reverse this situation. As with all TV prog's, nobody except the crew know what goes on behind the scenes.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

People make mistakes at times and I can believe that someone can pass some kind of interview knowing what the show expects. Noone saw such being used on the show did they?

As for the Pack Leader type stuff, just about everyone was saying that until relatively modern times, and even though it made me kind of smile & chuckle as it seemed a touch ludicrous, everyone "knew" that was the way it was with dogs. There's plenty of ppl who don't have the flexibility to change their minds in light of better evidence either.

I tended to break the rules, but feel a touch guilty about it, but never had a problem dog, so never worried overly.


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i can understand that she does not always *know* who is being selected as a 3rd-party guest -
> i *cannot* understand how a form-letter could claim that having 2 trainers who use flooding, choke-chains,
> prongs & coercion to *"treat"* or to *"prevent"* unwanted behavior *does not deliver a mixed-message
> to the viewing audience.*
> ...


It'll only generate apologies if 'someone' gets their panties in a bunch and doesn't let it drop. Simples. If 'someone' makes a big fuss about it and draws attention to it then it'll become a big deal instead of quickly and silently slipping beneath the waves never to be heard of again, all nice and quiet hush hush like...

People make mistakes (shock, horror) and they learn from their mistakes (really..) and hopefully they don't make them again (lesson learned).

Over reacting and going straight for the blame stick never solved anything. I'm amazed you don't understand that, as a trainer......

Victoria, bless her, is the figurehead of a very large crew and behind the scenes organisation. I wouldn't EVER expect her to be able to check up on each and every single person there....that's why they have their job, and she has hers. If she had to check every single person all the time she'd never get her own job done, and then where would her message be? Here's a hint: 20 hours per day of meetings 7 days a week.....

The NYFD rescue teams use prong collars, they appeared on a Saturday daytime TV show and not one single person it appears apart from me has noticed or said anything on any one single forum I've been to, ever. Is it really such a big deal Terri? Never thought of having a quiet grumble to yourself?

I met Vicki in an airport lounge years ago and asked her what her views on prong collars were, she said "oh, we don't use them on my show"...so I pressed further and asked her personal view on them, she said "I wouldn't use one on the show"..... huh??? Some stand and crusade against em eh?

Amazingly enough Terri, the APDT in the USA aren't against aversive or corrective measures either (or prong collars for that matter, like OMG, gag me with a spoon) and you should know, you've obviously read their manifesto and mission statement before sighning up....didn't you?

Here's a tip, when you fly off the handle at something instead of overlooking an obvious error and cause a lot of fuss, you inadvertantly promote what you're trying to suppress. BTW, ever heard of Sun Tzu?

regards,

Austin


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> We appreciate your feedback and value your input, but at the same time we do not agree that the airing of the episodes in question resulted in the level of tragic consequences that you detail below.


I am intrigued.....what was the 'email below', and what were these tragic concequences that were shot down so flippantly, sorry, detailed tragic concequences? A one sided view often leaves the most important information out.



> Victoria was under the impression that they were changing their overall philosophies, and she did not have the benefit of your apparently local knowledge about the full background of the trainers in question.


Ah, once a criminal always a criminal, no such thing as rehabilitation. Um, has anyone ever successfully rehabilitated a problem dog, maybe? If so, then you'll know it can happen unlike "someone" knows. That's actually quite tragic, a company who may potentially have been turning over a new leaf don't get any positive encouragement, or support, or even credibility.....just 'local knowledge' slurs, name calling, hearsay and an attempt to disrupt their business because they previously used....... and were about to turn over a new leaf when........
Shame some people can't show compassion, understanding and extend the same empathetic R+ (or NegR-+Pxe=mc2) training ethics to other human beings as well as their dogs....people learn so much from being scolded, accused and harassed by teachers (by that I mean "trainers").

regards,

Austin


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> It'll only generate apologies if 'someone' gets their panties in a bunch and doesn't let it drop. Simples. If 'someone' makes a big fuss about it and draws attention to it then it'll become a big deal instead of quickly and silently slipping beneath the waves never to be heard of again, all nice and quiet hush hush like...
> 
> People make mistakes (shock, horror) and they learn from their mistakes (really..) and hopefully they don't make them again (lesson learned).
> 
> ...


I don't think she's trying to hold VS personally responsible...However VS is in a position of authority and therefore she and her team ARE responsible for the people who come on the show. 'Someone' should have done research into the training methods used by the company.

The whole point is training has moved on from aversives but putting it repeatedly back in the public eye (a la CM) is doing us no favours.

Fair enough, they didn't use aversives on the show. But what happens when Joe Bloggs decides to train his dog and remembers 'those great trainers on IMOTD'? Will he be aware enough not to let them use aversives with his dog or will he think it's the done thing?

I agree that everyone makes mistakes but I don't think that writing a letter to VS team is an overreaction at all. I think it just shows that too many of us 'grumble privately' and never take it any further. How are things supposed to change if we don't?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Here's a tip, when you fly off the handle at something instead of overlooking an obvious error and cause a lot of fuss, you inadvertantly promote what you're trying to suppress. BTW, ever heard of Sun Tzu?


That's very true!

Hence the selective comparisons that tend to be employed when marketing products.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i've been told that the trainers were Mike D'Abbruzo & Earl Dunn - 
see pics: The K9-1 Dog Training Team

Mike D'Abbruzo's websites:
K9-1 Specialized Dog Training LLC
Dog Training - How to train your dog in advanced methods.

Earl Dunn's website:
Custom Canine

and as i said above, loads of k9-1 videos on UTube show various techniques which would not be supported 
IMO by the position-papers re *punishment* or *aggression* which were posted by AVSAB, 
nor would such methods IMO be endorsed by *Welfare in Dog Training*, or many other organizations, 
including trainers' non-profit professional orgs, the ASPCA, etc.


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That's very true!
> 
> Hence the selective comparisons that tend to be employed when marketing products.


Then give me one example Rob or STFU maybe?

regards,

Austin


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> I don't think she's trying to hold VS personally responsible...However VS is in a position of authority and therefore she and her team ARE responsible for the people who come on the show. 'Someone' should have done research into the training methods used by the company.
> 
> The whole point is training has moved on from aversives but putting it repeatedly back in the public eye (a la CM) is doing us no favours.
> 
> ...


You don't know that, none of us do, and until I see the other side I'm not giving this farce any credibility.

Lets see this _"We appreciate your feedback and value your input, but at the same time we do not agree that the airing of the episodes in question resulted in the level of tragic consequences that you detail below."_ first hand and be left to make our own minds up about either a constructive point for debate, or the rantings of a fanatic.



> we don't feel it's a fair statement to suggest that she or her show have `undermined' all positive trainers.


Uh oh, telltale sign of blaming VS personally and trying to hold her responsible.....not convinced? Maybe......



> we feel it is irresponsible to suggest that Victoria herself is complicit in setting back the movement towards positive reinforcement methods. For the above mentioned reasons, we also feel it's irresponsible to suggest that dog owners should no longer watch the show...


On second thoughts.....I stand by my generalisation of malicious blame and bunny boiling obsesiveness...

While you may not like him, and personally I think he's a flake, but one thing I really respect Cesar for...he shows his mistakes, and keeps the positive message I think all dog owners should hear "that didn't work, it's ok, we'll try something else and not give up....", so if he's setting you back in one way, he's keeping you going forwards in others.

regards,

Austin


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Then give me one example Rob or STFU maybe?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Austin


Oh dear...


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Oh dear...


I know, the 3 syllable word might be too long.....could it have been worded more simply?

regards,

Austin


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Luvmydogworldwide? Do you fancy Rob or something? I only ask because you seem a little obsessed with nitpicking at anything he/she posts! Is it an attention seeking thing maybe? 

Doesn't make you look clever though and obviously, Rob does not feel the same.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

What you are doing Austin is harassment. :nono:


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> What you are doing Austin is harassment. :nono:


Really? I thought I was equally allowed to have an opinion. Lets compare:



> Hence the selective comparisons that tend to be employed when marketing products.


Doesnt the good book teach us "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand" (Ex. 21:23, 24)?

regards,

Austin


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

Oooh, someone's tetchy, posts being deleted already. Might have to start saving each one and posting it again later.

regards,

Austin


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

hawksport said:


> Here's an extract from my good book.
> "Please do not use obscene or offensive language, or engage in personal attacks or "flaming" of other members. This will not be tolerated and Pet Forums staff will be entitled to suspend users accounts."
> 
> Pet Forums Community - FAQ: Pet Forums Rules


Didn't think that rule was eforced....it seems to go by so many many times. Thanks for that advice though, I'll make sure there's a vigilant eye kept open for any and you'll be the first to know about them.

regards,

Austin


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

Austin comments like that are not needed.

Back to the topic:

Just as you are able to express your opinion about why we _shouldn't_ grumble / complain / 'overreact', LFL and any others of us who want to write a letter or respond to the show are also entitled to do so.

We might not know exactly what goes on behind the scenes but neither do you. We can only act on the information we have been given and in this instance, the fact is that they used trainers who do employ aversive methods. Maybe not on camera but the idea of unspoken endorsement is there.


----------



## keirk (Aug 9, 2010)

This wholly uninteresting thread has little or nothing to do with the training or behaviour of dogs. If you dont like the programme dont watch it.


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> Austin comments like that are not needed.
> 
> Back to the topic:
> 
> ...


No, Pawsitive, we've not been given the information. We've been shown a reply to a mystery email that fortold of doom and gloom because these trainers were allowed on VS's show, and the person booking them should be fired. I'd like to see Terri's first email that was sent to the show, bet you it's a complete rant about nothing. That's why the reply was so vauge. So, lets have a look at the 2 trainers that featured shall we?

1) _Earl Dunn, is a certified trainer and behaviorist, Rutgers University graduate, responsible and trustworthy business owner of Custom Canine Dog Training, and an avid animal lover. Some of Earls memberships and accomplishments include: AKC Canine Good Citizen evaluator, member of IACP (International Association of Canine Professionals), member of the BBB (Better Business Bureau), and Certified Foundation Dog Trainer._

Wow, that's quite an impressive set of qualifications, now why would someone like that use aversive methods?

_Earl has vast experience ranging from working with clients dogs, shelter dogs, personal protection dogs, special cases and much more._

Ah, that explains it...personal protection dogs. A good example of where R+P-2xe=mc2 theory fails. So it's understandable if they see some use for aversive methods, pretty self explanatory really.

2) _Mike D'Abruzzo: Primarily self taught, Mike began his career by training difficult "unadoptable" dogs at local shelters in 1993. He continued this practice while receiving his degree in Veterinary science and attending the Tom Rose School of Dog Training, the most respected school for trainers in the country and possibly the world. Mike also studied canine behavioral problems at Cornell University and specialized working dog techniques at Global K9 in Sumerset, TX. Mike's first professional work was as a sub-contractor for other highly regarded trainers, taking on their "problem cases" as personal challenges. In late 1998, he decided that he should start a business of his own, where he would have the ability to implement his own brand of value based training._

Hmmm, again this seems a very impressive resume, perhaps some experience might help on why the OP is making wild accusations...?

_Mike has trained dogs for the department of defense, film, competition, police, security agencies, celebrities, and was chosen as the training coordinator for the explosive detection canines used by FEMA during the post 9-11 recovery efforts._

Ah, once again we see security agencies...protection dogs....suddenly the use of aversive methods becomes far less sinister and a little more reasoned. Perhaps the companys outlook will help us shed a little light on their evil methods that will _"result in the level of tragic consequences that you (the OP's rant) detail below"_

_K9-1 Specialized Dog Training LLC is a progressive privately owned company dedicated to educating the average pet owner about intelligent dog ownership, improvement and standardization of humane and reliable dog training systems for professional dog trainers, and the development of non-kill solutions for dog shelter organizations.
K9-1, founded in 1998 by Mike DAbruzzo, is based upon Knowledge of dog behavior and values such as Respect, Patience, and Devotion as a foundation to develop all dog training systems._

Again, seems pretty respectable and a reasoned approach. Perhaps if they were R+ only zealots the OP wouldn't have this issue? Then again, would they be as effective with the range of dogs and situations they choose to deal with? Probably not! Considering the first thing you see on their website is the trainers lampooning alpha theory, dominance and alpha rolls I find it hard to believe the OP insists they use it so much. Their statements are also very R+ orientated, but they admit there's a place for some aversive training if necessary. On the whole, I'd feel fairly comfortable with what I've seen so far.

It's quite feasible the person booking them said "positive reinforcement only", and with the obvious experience here they said "ok, not a problem", did what they'd agreed, and kept "on message" for the show. Why, without seeing the email sent to the production team by the OP, should anyone be even slightly concerned about this issue other than a vindictive attempt to damage another business, which I personally think is underhand and deplorable.

regards,

Austin


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Are you perchance suggesting that certain dogs require aversive tactics, and / or that certain disciplines of training require aversive tactics?

I would disagree.

And my reason for that has less to do with dogs, and more to do with all the other species successfully trained using R+, for a variety of behaviours, without aversives.

In a laboratory setting:

Various species of monkeys and apes have been trained to perform tasks including:

Placement behaviours / targetting - including sitting still on weighing scales, walking down the corridor and into the procedure room, enterng a transport box, etc.

Offering a limb or other part for injection or blood collection (despite such procedures being themselves aversive).

Allowing health care such as checking teeth.

Dogs and pigs have been successfully trained for appropriate procedures, even rats have been trained to accept oral dosing to negate the need for oral gavage.

(The talk I saw on pig training was escpecially fascinating - its almost unbelievable what the lab in question had achieved with a clicker and some treats).

In a zoo setting:

A number of zoos are now using "PRT" as it has become known in the industry (Positive Reinforcement Training) in order to negate the need for physical or chemical restraints when conducting necessary husbandry or health care procedures.

This includes teaching animals to move between certain locations (eg in order to facilitate cage cleaning), to approach the keepers and present various postures and body parts for health checks and for samples to be taken, etc.

Such training is geared towards what is needed - some animals may be trained only to move from their indoor to outdoor enclosures and vice versa, others to perform behaviours such as stand side on, face the front, jump up, open mouth, etc.

The range of species I have seen trained this way (either in person or video footage) is incredible - ranging from elephants and giraffes, through various primates, to large carnivores such as big cats and African wild dogs.

In both the lab and zoo settings, training has distinct benefits for both the animals and the handlers. 
The animals willingly cooperate, and thus do not need to be physically restrained (by hand / in crushes etc), nor anaesthetised / darted and thus avoid the fear, stress, and potential risk of injury that the usual methods pose. The training itself also provides a form of environmental enrichment / mental stimulation, which is often otherwise lacking in these environments.
The handlers benefit from an easier, safer, and far less stressful job!

In performing animals:

The prime example here is SeaWorld, and similar places. Animals are taught various behaviours, both for routine husbandry and health care, and for performance to the public. These can include behaviours which would naturally be avoided (but are necessary) or complex behavioour chains, involving a range of behaviours executed with accuracy and precision timing.

Some of these animals, like the killer whales, are very large carnivores that would naturally eat prey very similar to a wetsuit clad human. You can't put a choke chain or prong collar collar on them, a slap is pretty pointless, and forget the shock collar. 
Oh and if you pi$$ them off - they can kill you.

The trainers of these animals not only train from the sidelines, they get in the water with, even ride on the backs on these top-of-the-food-chain carnivores. Regardless of the ethics involved, one thing is clear. If those animals objected, those people would be dead.

Domestic animals:

A wide variety of pets have been successfully trained, to perform a variety of behaviours, using PRT. This ranges from chickens to goldfish, dogs to horses, cats to rabbits.

Indeed, the same principles have even been used to teach and train people. From young children to adult athletes.

So.... it seems that _some_ trainers can train animals ranging from the very small, to the very large, from the very complex and intelligent to the very basic, from herbivores through omnivores to carnivores, from the highly domesticated to the captive wild undomesticated....
In behaviours that may be simple or complex, easy or difficult, single behaviours or long chains, behaviours that are fun or behaviours that are unpleasent or result in aversive consequences....

But you are saying it doesn't work on certain domestic dogs, or certain dog training disciplines?

Seriously?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

- i did not SEE the show; i moved & do not get the channel. i heard about it - 
from multiple trusted sources, on Facebook, on Yahoo groups, on trainers lists, on forums.

- ergo, i SENT no e-mail; i am stating my opinion on a public forum.

- the REPLY is a form-letter, sent to each person who wrote to complain. 
it's easily found on-line. It was posted on Facebook by a Stilwell-affiliated trainer - 
after THEY wrote to VS, & received it in reply.

- here is Victoria on child-safety around dogs: 
Children and Dog Safety : It's Me or the Dog : Animal Planet

- with multiple alternative bite-prevention programs, why not choose one 
which is nationally known, highly-reputable, has been around for years, 
AND is affiliated with reward-based training... since that's Victoria's primary message.

among the possible choices: 
Colleen Pelar - 
Amazon.com: Living with Kids and Dogs...Without Losing Your Mind (9781933562667): Colleen Pelar: Books 
website: Living with Kids and Dogs - Parenting Secrets for a Safe and Happy Home

Doggone Safe - 
Doggone Safe - Home

Dogs & Storks - 
Dogs&Storks Dog and Baby Safety

re k9-1 & controversy, here's a discussion on Vic's own website - 
Positively | Victoria Stilwell | Forum • View topic - Presa Canario Episode

see the post 3rd from the top - *this was not* k9-1's first appearance on I-M-O-T-D.

the recent episode was "Dakota Territory" with a Bull Terrier - on the 7th of May. 
this refers to an episode with a Presa - circa April 16, 2011.

if there was already flak in mid-April, why are they back several weeks later?
notice the comments which quote Vic's defensive tweets, after fans object.

WRONG USE of terms quoted, more than 3/4 down page 1: 


> Re: *Presa Canario Episode*
> 
> Post by abndogos » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:27 am
> 
> ...


the explanation of neg-R is convoluted, & the *deduction* part is essential & correct; 
the *avoidance* part is inaccurate; the learner avoids REPEATING the behavior to escape 
an unwanted consequence: the applied [added AKA positive] punisher, which is later removed 
during the neg-R step, when the learner stops the UNwanted behavior & the aversive is removed.

the explanation of *punishment* covers Positive Punishment, but not negative punishment: 
the deduction of something the learner would work to earn. [U don't do Ur homework, 
i take away the TV-time... *&* the ice-cream U'd have eaten, during that favorite program.]


----------



## Henry77 (Jun 3, 2011)

Terry,keep digging. The first show with k9-1 has a dog that they are calling a timber wolf. Misrepresentation and fraud in my opinion. Shame on Victoria,it is clearly a domestic dog!Have you seen longhaired Dutch Shepherd mixes and other such varieties of dogs? The owner should seek legal council immediately.May I make a suggestion to the owner,perhaps you should call the media attorney Neville Johnson,I hear He doesn't like it much when the little guy or in her case girl gets misrepresented by the media. Shame, shame,shame on you Animal Planet and Victoria Stilwell. Do a better job of vetting and certainly question the motivations of these trainers.


----------



## Henry77 (Jun 3, 2011)

Did anyone happen to notice that the bone of contention episode with the k9-1 trainers has been pulled? Somebody has their tail between their legs.I hope that girl and her dog are safe and that the mislabeling of her dog does not cause what I for see as some major problems.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

This is the animal in question from the show on K9-1's video here:
YouTube - ‪Dog Training with Primitive Breeds - www.SelfHelpDogTraining.com (K9-1)‬‏

It looks like a Mackenzie Valley Wolf black color phenotype to me. Definitely don't see how that is a Belgian Shepherd mix. Moves nothing like one, built nothing like one - I should know I own one. Compare the wild photo of this type of wolf with the one on their website.

wild wolf









animal from episode in question:









I can't find anything on the net about the owner claiming this wasn't a wolf?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the photo with the Lab-mix/ Viszla-mix / Redbone-X / whatever [hard to tell butt-on] looks like a high-% hybrid, 
50% wolf or better [an F1 progeny of a dog x wolf, or the progeny of an F1 50:50 bred back to a wolf].

but i don't see why the parentage of the canid matters, in this case [& BTW i am extremely against 
breeding dogs with wolves, it enhances neither species & degrades behavior enormously].

my complaint was entirely about the selection of guests, who should IMO conform to reward-based, 
since that's the premise of the show & the intention of Vic's training: use dog-friendly tools & methods. 
the _*prong collar*_ clearly visible in that photo would be one such no-no, IMO. :thumbdown:


----------



## Henry77 (Jun 3, 2011)

Like you Terry,I am also not a proponent of wolf ownership. I am familiar with the link and In my opinion I think it highly irresponsible of such trainers to call this dog a wolf. Like you, I was disappointed Victoria would use trainers that utilizes the methods you pointed out in your earlier blogs. I was simply pointing out that you should also question the trainers motivation for fame. To call a domestic dog a wolf is a dangerous statement.Look into how many dogs are mislabeled as wolves or wolf mixes and end up in very bad situations. I will not get into a debate over this. What I will say is somebody on Victorias crew did get it wrong,very wrong. My concern is for the owner and her dog. If she is not on a megaphone all over the web Greg1, I would take that a sign of the wheels of justice at work!


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

Henry, please don't take offense but I agree with Terry. This is not a domestic dog. Most likely at least a high percentage hybrid. This is a good site for reference on hybrids: Wolfdog Content - What Does It Mean?

Even in movies wolves are usually portrayed by malamute or husky crosses (easier to handle) with wolves so many people are not aware that North American wolves are usually tall and narrow and come in shades of black. In the video I posted earlier in particular the trot, rounded ears and tall narrow structure is very different from my Belgian shepherd. I am also noticing HUGE bottom molars in the photo.

I have personally interacted with two half wolves (mixed with malamute) and they looked less wolf than the one in the show.

The k9-1 guys seem pretty established and think it is a little unfair to accuse them of something unethical. I too am more bothered that Victoria would put them on the show, but i would guess these shows come to the trainers and not vice versa. They seem upfront of what they use and at least seem to try to educate on the proper way to use those methods. In this video they clearly are not hiding that they condone aversives YouTube - ‪Foundation Style Dog Training (K9-1)‬‏

If the show is off the air i would guess it is because of the backlash she got from showing prong collars on the episode. She could probably lose sponsors. I remember years ago there was an episode where she suggested euthanasia to a cockerspaniel, and they killed the dog on the episode! She got tons of backlash for that and that episode was killed too.

I would never use a shock collar on a dog or a prong like these guys, but I will use positive punishment with a head halter or no pull harness. I've seen Victoria use positive punishment too on her show - it is just not what she likes to highlight.

I think the problem is if she wants an exciting show that has a pitbull doing attack work on it - it is going to be hard to find a trainer that does that work with only PURELY positive training. The best she could do is not show the cranking on the dog on camera and highlight to the audience only the points she wants to make.

I am very curious if she will be more careful to represent only purely positive training this next season. She definitely has been getting more purely positive with each season.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> I think the problem is *if [Vic] wants an exciting show [with] a pitbull doing [bite]work... it [will] be hard to find a trainer [who] does that... with [primarily / biased] positive[-reinforcement] training. *
> 
> [At] best, she [can] "not show" cranking on the dog on camera and [could] highlight to the audience only [those] points she wants to make.


what *bloody faffing hypotenuse* does it matter, WHAT BREED the dog is!?! :lol:

if i train a JRT, a Malinois, a GSD or a 15# Poodle, IT DOES NOT MATTER - the process is the same. 
bite-sports are all very similarly trained, especially when we refer to motivational training which avoids 
corrections & aversives, & focuses on helping the dog succeed & builds terrific enthusiasm by making 
the lessons tremendous fun, & keeping the dog successful.

if Vic wants to see an APBT do bite-work, i am sure Teresa Lewin would be thrilled to help her with that; 
seeing the early-beginnings is often much more illuminating than seeing a fluent dog, 6-mos later. 
Teresa trains in Schutzhund & has titled her GSD with reward-based training.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

Last post didnt go through, here is the quick version:

this is the clip with the pitbull from the show. The breed mattered because, as unfair as it is to pitbulls, she was trying to demonstrate the power of bully breeds in particular. Unfortunately, pitbulls do create more sensationalism than 15# poodles:

animal.discovery.com/videos/its-me-or-the-dog-weapon-on-a-leash.html


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

It's Me or the Dog: Weapon On a Leash : Video : Animal Planet is a fixed link 

Why's showing a Pittbull with good recall "unfair"? I think I even saw that show first time round, whilst I was wrinkling my nose, in the context it was obvious the aim was a wake up call to the owner.

greg's right about P+ being shown on VS's show at times, we discussed if it was necessary in a thread on indoor marking for instance. I am not sure that VS didn't use the setup to be "seen to be doing something" so the rather chaotic householders undertook necessary supervision & regular trips outside to extinguish the indoor marking by P-.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Why's showing a Pittbull with good recall "unfair"?


My first impression was that exploiting the pitbull's power can add to the general fear of them, prejudice, and BSL.

But, you are right. There really isn't anything unfair being said or portrayed. I love the breed - maybe me being overprotective of their image.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

greg1 said:


> My first impression was that exploiting the pitbull's power can add to the general fear of them, prejudice, and BSL


And I'm sure you're right to, fact is a Toy Poodle or Yorkie, behaving the same, would have looked "cute" to uneducated TV viewers and they'd have laughed. It had to be a large powerfull dog to have the visual impact of what our "Wouldn't hurt a fly" (as so many complacent owners say round here, even after a predatory chase has occured) pets are capable of and why solid training is important to control them well.


----------

