# EXCITING - training-manual for military, police, paramilitary & security k9s!



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Amazon.com: K9 Behavior Basics: A Manual for Proven Success in Operational Service Dog Training (9781550593662): Resi Gerritsen, Ruud Haak, Simon Prins: Books

i am simply *thrilled* to announce this book - 
& await permission to share specific info re its authors, & the consultant who coached the team.

the k9-team behind this manual has been working primarily in Europe for *seven years. * 
in that time, they have lost only One handler, and Zero dogs - which in itself is remarkable. 
among other deployments, they found & busted the terrorist-group behind the train-bombing in Spain. 
:thumbup: big score for the good-guys!

i am here going to urge everyone who wants to see the police *move* 
from antiquated yank-N-yell into the current era, to Buy A Copy *and donate it*. 
no, i'm not joking: I sincerely think every police-department with even one k9 & handler, 
& every military or paramilitary force k9-unit, *and* every private security-firm that trains 
personal-protection or perimeter-patrol dogs, etc, whether for companies or individuals, 
_should own & use this manual._ But let's start with the police - buy one, & give it 
to Your Local police-department; see what happens.

i would warranty that *if they read & use it,* training will improve, proofing 
will improve, results will improve - the dogs' attitudes will become so gung-ho, 
handlers will be speechless; & the criminals *will hate it.* 
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Amazon.com: K9 Behavior Basics: A Manual for Proven Success in Operational Service Dog Training (9781550593662): Resi Gerritsen, Ruud Haak, Simon Prins: Books
> 
> i am simply *thrilled* to announce this book - [/I][/B][/SIZE]
> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Well....

be still, my beating heart.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> be still, my beating heart.


be as sarcastic as U like - :001_smile: having *worked with * a dog who was tortured during her 
so-called 'training' by a city police-department in Arizona, i cannot _*wait*_ for military, 
cop-k9 units, paramilitary orgs, & all the other 'working-k9' trainers & handlers 
to _*move on -*_ from the Neanderthal methods they use now.

if i listed all the things done to that former-cop-k9 - she's the GSD pictured in my sig-line - 
U'd be nauseous. At least, i was - & i'm no shrinking violet; she was purchased by a donor for $15,000 
from Europe as a started-dog at 15-MO, shipped to the USA, & began training; her donor *witnessed* 
a training-session that involved a metal-pipe used to hit the dog, while she was wearing a shock-collar, 
also in use - operated by a second handler, & overseen by the PD-instructor, head of k9-training. :thumbdown:

the donor TOOK her dog, shoved her into the backseat of her car, & drove her home; 
unfortunately, the GSD did not sit well with their current in-house dog, & did not settle indoors, either; 
so the woman put her in their horse-pasture with barn-access, & left her there for over a year. 
since the fence was designed for horses, not dogs, she took off at least once or twice a week - 
& the lady got tired of paying fines. She put her up for adoption on a GSD-rescue site, 
& my former client here in VA paid to have her flown here; considering her background, she's incredible.

Lucy lives with a single mother & 2 boys in a 2-bedroom apartment, with neighbors, lots of come & go, 
foot & car-traffic, etc; the biggest hangover from her horrific *handling* - it does not deserve IMO to be 
called '*training*' - is a sincere hatred & fear of all other dogs: they chained her to a 12-ft high backboard 
normally used as an obstacle, & brought other patrol-dogs for bark-&-hold exercises on her; every time 
she barked, or even lunged defensively but silently, she was shocked with a held-down button on the remote, 
& struck with telescoping batons, etc.

if i never in my life meet another ex-k9 with nightmares, i'll be ecstatic. As it is, 
shifting the military-mind & that of other enforcement-k9 organizations is a personal priority 
of mine; *inhumane handling is NOT training, IMO - * & should be banned.

it creates dogs who are not trusting, even of their own partners, & has resulted in serious injuries 
to entirely-innocent people - like the child attacked by a customs-patrol k9 at Dulles Intl Airport, 
who had serious injuries from being grabbed by her abdomen by a Malinois who would not OUT, 
& the handler had to beat the dog into letting-go. :cursing: this is not acceptable.

Four-Year-Old Bitten by Dog at Dulles | NBC Washington

Customs Dog Bites 4-Year-Old Girl at Dulles Airport

pictures of her bloody shirt with multiple punctures - 
Customs Patrol Dog Attacks Child At Dulles Airport | Morrison World News

the mother was repeatedly bitten when she tried to get her child off the floor, while the dog had the 4-YO 
pinned & the handler ineffectively told the dog to OUT repeatedly. 
the child had multiple stitches, as did the mother, & the little girl had bruising as well - 
photos of her injuries can be seen via Google Images.

police-dogs & other k9s *must be* trained humanely to be safe in public, even if that had 
no other quantifiable benefits - but since it results in dogs who out-perform the tortured counterparts, 
there is every reason to use humane-training, and trash the old-fashioned harsh handling script.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> police-dogs & other k9s *must be* trained humanely to be safe in public, even if that had
> no other quantifiable benefits - but since it results in dogs who out-perform the tortured counterparts,
> there is every reason to use humane-training, and trash the old-fashioned harsh handling script.


It is heart warming to see that things are moving forward in the forces where dog training is concerned. Its' evolution is long overdue and hopefully even the die hard dinosaurs will lift the blinkers from their eyes and admit that there is a better way and that it is successful - no batteries required for results! Either that or they will crawl away and leave the clever stuff to more compassionate and intelligent hands


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

----- Original Message -----

From: terry pride 
To: Bob Bailey
Sent: Fri., June 10, 2011; 12:03 PM
Subject: off-list APDT-list: please may i cross-post?

picture me on my knees, hands clasped & held up: PLEASE, please, please may i cross-post this?

======================



> _If anyone is interested in a new book on in-the-trenches (quite literally) ABA dog training:
> 
> K9 BEHAVIOR BASICS by Garritson, Haak, and Prins - ISBN 978-1-55059-366-2
> 
> ...


=====================================

i am so excited to hear/see this! we have MANY military handlers in my local area, who are brass-bound 
hardheads re the absolute necessity to punish the &$#! out of any dog, working-k9 or pet, 
who DISOBEYS... and the enlisted who do not work with mil-k9s or perimeter-patrol are often 
just as hardheaded about punishment.

the local police also think physical punishment & harsh handling are IMPERATIVE - no waffling, 
no second-chances, no motivating methods: Tell the dog to DO IT - or else.

i want to shout this from the rooftops!
yours in anticipation,
- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*dogs R dogs, wolves R wolves, primates R us.*
---- tmp, Sept-2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



> _Re: off-list APDT-list: please may i cross-post?
> Friday, June 10, 2011 1:24 PM
> From: Bob Bailey
> Add sender to Contacts
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the *Brelands*, Marion & Keller, were grad-students of Skinner. 
they became fascinated by animal-behavior, & after their graduate work, founded a business. 
Ch 11: Behaviorism: After the Founding. | Brelands form

they also worked for the Federal guvmint extensively during WW-2; among other things, they taught 
pigeons to I.D. hidden tanks, machine-gun emplacements, & other camouflaged weapons 
in aerial photographs. 
their trained birds also saved the lives of many downed-pilots, as pigeons had a remarkable ability 
to pick-out a man's head from over 500-ft up in 4 to 10-ft waves at sea... impossible for any human, 
easy for the birds.

Marion's contributions to knowledge are summed here in a short bio - 
Marian Breland Bailey

in the early-1960s the Brelands were hired by the US-Navy to help train dolphins, & met Bob Bailey, 
the Navy's 1st 'director of training'. Marion also published a chapter in a text on _Teaching the Mentally-Retarded,_ 
as she & Keller had trained many attendants in ways to help retarded persons cope with life-skills 
or enrich their lives - at the time, mostly lifelong in institutions which were barren & boring.

their most-famous paper: 
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Breland & Breland (1961) 
explains that without a thorough comprehension of the innate & learned aspects of any species 
behavioral repertoire, solidly proofed trained behaviors are impossible to achieve: a dolphin cannot learn 
what a dog learns easily, a chicken cannot learn what a pigeon may find simple, etcetera.

Amazon.com: Animal behavior (The Critical issues in psychology series): Keller Breland, Marian Breland: Books

Keller died in 1965; Marion was left with 3 children & a large business. 
in 1967 she decided to finish her doctorate, interrupted when she & Keller founded *A*nimal *B*ehavior *E*nterprises. 
Bailey had joined ABE as Research-director in 1965; after Keller's death, he became general-manager. 
ABE in the popular press: 
Operant psychology goes to the fair: Marian and Keller Breland in the popular press, 1947-1966

in 1976 Marion married Bob Bailey, & in 1978 after 11 years as a part-time student, got her precious PhD.

Marion Breland Bailey died in 2001; thankfully Bob is still with us, & continues to work in the field. 
Page Title

DogPACT -

Bob spent 7-years as consultant to the Euro-government in the re-training of trainers & handlers with dogs, 
using behavior-analysis & reward-based training [vs the former strong coercion], resulting in this book - 
which tho not his authorship, is based on his work.

his last chicken-training camp will be held in 2012, 
Bob Bailey and Animal Training | Stale Cheerios [with a video: 
use of environmental cues for 2 behaviors: discriminatory response using *color*]
& for those of us who have longed to go, or those lucky to have attended, it is the end of an era.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> be as sarcastic as U like - having *worked with * a dog who was tortured during her so-called 'training' by a city police-department in Arizona, i cannot _*wait*_ for military,
> cop-k9 units, paramilitary orgs, & all the other 'working-k9' trainers & handlers
> to _*move on -*_ from the Neanderthal methods they use now.


Here's the bad news. You *will *have to wait for any change in how PSD's (Police Service Dogs) are trained. It's not going to change because you recommend a book.



leashedForLife said:


> if i listed all the things done to that former-cop-k9 - she's the GSD pictured in my sig-line -
> U'd be nauseous. At least, i was - & i'm no shrinking violet; she was purchased by a donor for $15,000
> from Europe as a started-dog at 15-MO, shipped to the USA, & began training; her donor *witnessed*
> a training-session that involved a metal-pipe used to hit the dog, while she was wearing a shock-collar,
> also in use - operated by a second handler, & overseen by the PD-instructor, head of k9-training.


Clearly abuse and NOT training. I'd arrest anyone I saw doing this. Did the donor inform the appropriate authorities about this abuse? How about this trainer's supervisor? Did she pursue charges and then testify against this trainer?



leashedForLife said:


> the donor TOOK her dog, shoved her into the backseat of her car, & drove her home; unfortunately, the GSD did not sit well with their current in-house dog, & did not settle indoors, either; so the woman put her in their horse-pasture with barn-access, & left her there for over a year.


Exiling a dog like this for _"over a year"_ is just another form of abuse. Perhaps one that is worse then what you allege the police trainers did.



leashedForLife said:


> Lucy lives with a single mother & 2 boys in a 2-bedroom apartment, with neighbors, lots of come & go, foot & car-traffic, etc; the biggest hangover from her horrific handling - it does not deserve IMO to be called 'training'- is a sincere hatred & fear of all other dogs: *they chained her to a 12-ft high backboard normally used as an obstacle, & brought other patrol-dogs for bark-&-hold exercises on her; *every time she barked, or even lunged defensively but silently, she was shocked with a held-down button on the remote, & struck with telescoping batons, etc. [Emphasis Added]


How would this previous training give Lucy a _"sincere hatred & fear of all other dogs?"_ Why would anyone have a dog do a _"bark & hold exercise"_ on a dog? Do you even know what a "bark and hold" is? What department was this? I'm having a hard time accepting what you claim was done to this dog.



leashedForLife said:


> if i never in my life meet another ex-k9 with nightmares, i'll be ecstatic. As it is, shifting the military-mind & that of other enforcement-k9 organizations is a personal priority of mine


Mine too.



leashedForLife said:


> *inhumane handling is NOT training, IMO - * & should be banned.


This is not training. It's abuse and *IS *banned by laws controlling abuse in every state.



leashedForLife said:


> it creates dogs who are not trusting, even of their own partners, & has resulted in serious injuries to entirely-innocent people - like the child attacked by a customs-patrol k9 at Dulles Intl Airport, who had serious injuries from being grabbed by her abdomen by a Malinois who would not OUT, & the handler had to beat the dog into letting-go. this is not acceptable.


I agree that what you describe is not acceptable; but how do you know that the methods you describe were used on this dog at the airport? The news story you link to was quite lacking in any detail at all. It's so devoid of information that they say that the dog was a _"Belgian *MALAWA"*_ (It was a Malinois).

Or are you trying to generalize and hint that since one department has done this (if, in fact they did) that all departments do?

What evidence to you have that links this dog (at the airport) to the story you told of Lucy? Do you have any idea how the CBP trains dogs at Front Royal? Are you alleging that the methods you previously described are used there?



leashedForLife said:


> police-dogs & other k9s *must be* trained humanely to be safe in public,


Bad bites (defined as anytime a PSD bites someone that is not the target) are most often a handler error issue. What evidence do you have that this was a result of the kind of training that you've described above? Or are you, as you often do, merely mentioning two events and claiming that one caused the other?



leashedForLife said:


> even if that had no other quantifiable benefits - but since it results in dogs who out-perform the tortured counterparts,


Again, please supply the evidence that links the training method you described with this incident.



leashedForLife said:


> there is every reason to use humane-training, and trash the old-fashioned harsh handling script.


What evidence do you have that the dog at Dulles was trained with harsh methods? Methinks your brush is a bit too broad. What do you know of the training methods used by the CBP?

Let's be clear. I have no problem with you recommending a book. I do have a problem when you try "to sell it" by insinuating that all PSD training is abusive and _"torture."_ It's simply not true.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> It is heart warming to see that things are moving forward in the forces where dog training is concerned. Its' evolution is long overdue and hopefully even the die hard dinosaurs will lift the blinkers from their eyes and admit that there is a better way and that it is successful


Except that *IT'S NOT SUCCESSFUL! * There has NEVER been a police patrol dog that's been trained exclusively with the so−called "kinder gentler methods". For quite some time I've had a challenge on the Net open to anyone who can find me such a dog. No one has ever been able to find me such a dog.

I'll ask the same questions of you that I've asked of l4l.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i am so excited to hear/see this! we have MANY military handlers in my local area, who are brass-bound hardheads re the absolute necessity to punish the &$#! out of any dog, working-k9 or pet, who DISOBEYS... and the enlisted who do not work with mil-k9s or perimeter-patrol are often just as hardheaded about punishment.


Do you think that talking about them in this fashion is going to make them want to change? Or is it more likely that they'll dig in their heels and make it even harder for them to accept your methods?



leashedForLife said:


> the local police also think physical punishment & harsh handling are IMPERATIVE - no waffling, no second-chances, no motivating methods: Tell the dog to DO IT - or else.


I think that physical punishment is sometimes necessary when training patrol PSD's. And when one looks at the OC definition of this term, so do you. Harsh handling is not. I agree that there should be no waffling and no second chances. When a PSD gets a command it must be obeyed immediately.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i have already posted about the disastrous regression of the USA Border-Patrol & Customs-k9 training - 
having *been told about it by a current handler who is nearing retirement, * & who frankly hopes 
to make it to that milestone without quitting in disgust.



> March 25, 2011 -
> _ *Border Patrol training regresses '60-yrs'; "drives"*
> 
> sad times, IMO :---(
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

YouTube - ‪Baltimore Police Training K-9 Dog‬‏

the man in the background, encouraging & directing, is the department-head - who is operating 
the remote for the shock-collar.

notice the handler: kneels on, punches, throttles, suspends by the *SHOCK*-collar, etc.

NOTE also that this is *S.O.P.* in many k9-patrol units; *Steve White* was hired to help the Balt. PD 
clean-up their public image, due to the public reaction... but many k9s are abused, unseen. 
this video was embarrassing because they were caught - not because they were sorry.

S.O.P.: Standard Operating Procedure: by the book performance.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

YouTube - ‪NC Trooper Sgt. Charles Jones Abuses K-9 Partner‬‏

NC State-Trooper 'disciplines' "his" dog - except the dog is not his, & this is not "discipline".

he lost his job - yet many patrol-officers acknowledge this was not unusual behavior, 
*what mattered was that he was caught on film,* forcing an embarrassed department 
to act in the face of public outrage.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

YouTube - ‪Girl, 13 attacked by Police dog‬‏

the idiot-handler turned his dog loose to 'exercise' in an unsecure emergency helipad, 
*directly adjacent to a middle-school;* the dog escaped the fence, ran to the soccer field 
where a game was in progress, & bit a girl, who was watching the game, in the leg; the wound 
required stitches.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Amazon.com: Dogwise: The Natural Way to Train Your Dog (9780285631144): John Fisher: Books

this was published in 1996 - *the late, great John Fisher* trained the first 
reward-trained British patrol-k9; this book is his journal of how he did it. 
his dog achieved some of the highest scores of any dog tested, until that time.

he's not the only dog to have made patrol-k9 via reward-training - he's just the only one i know of, 
with a book detailing the process. *John did use training-discs as an interruptor, but later 
found he did not need them to proof behaviors.* and lest anyone misinterpret: 
the discs are a distinctive noise, nothing more. [some people assume they are thrown to HIT the dog, 
which is absolutely not the purpose.]


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

They NYPD section on "Wonder Dogs" was emphasising reward based training, tennis balls featured highly. Of course, I cannot know if they have skeletons in the cupboard they wish to keep private. The handlers however seemed far more clueful than those shown in the macho culture border patrol.

There's a video of a news reporter getting bitten in face by a wonderfully trained police dog, with handler apparently oblivious to the warning sign. Every time LC posts about K9 reliability standards I think about that vid.

IIRC it's shown as an example of missed "whale eye" and consequence of not noticing the proximity discomfort body language. Of course a rewards based dog would have likely growled, but *someone* corrected the hell out of that "fault" I guess. Well done bullies, you got a good dog put down and a TV reporter scarred!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> There's a video of a news reporter getting bitten in face by a wonderfully trained police dog,
> with handler apparently oblivious to the warning sign. Every time LC posts about K9 reliability standards I think about that vid.
> 
> IIRC it's shown as an example of missed "whale eye" and consequence of not noticing the proximity discomfort body language.
> ...


this one - 
YouTube - ‪Dog attack‬‏

"Police Dog Attacks TV-Personality John Gordon" [unfortunately, on camera - & bites not the camera, 
but Gordon's face.]

the reporter was interviewing the k9-handler, who'd just been talking to kids about avoiding illegal-drugs; 
the dog is young, not very experienced, & EARLY in the tape, looks anxiously to his handler for help, 
who is utterly oblivious & does nothing to make the intrusive behavior stop.

thank DoG the assault was on an adult, not a child - the handler & reporter were *both* at fault, 
but the reporter ignored all the dog's back-off signals, too. And yes - i'd bet the dog was punished 
previously for growling, leaving him with a profoundly-stunted Early Warning System.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

But police patrol dogs must be trained using prong collars how dare you suggest otherwise . It's wonderful to see more people in such traditional based training areas coming over to the positive side


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> "Police Dog Attacks TV-Personality John Gordon" [unfortunately, on camera - & bites not the camera,
> but Gordon's face.]
> 
> the reporter was interviewing the k9-handler, who'd just been talking to kids about avoiding illegal-drugs;
> ...


Thank you! That clip certainly fits the bill, it would likely have taken me a while to re-find it, if I'd been challenged. I think I saw an original clip on a news organisations website, but that would be almost a year ago now, so I'm not sure.

The reporter cannot IMO be blamed for this, why should a TV reporter be an expert in reading body language, when he is getting clear "go go signals" from an *expert professional police K9 handler* with a carefully trained police dog?

If that was not the case, then again the reporter ought to have been warned.

CM/DW fans should also note how often the dogs on that show, lick lips and look at someone, then remember what this dog did without _clear_ warning.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the USA-Border Patrol, Customs-k9s & Coast-Guard detection-dogs *used to be* a mixed-bag, 
chosen from among the dogs in shelters via a nomination & testing process. i also posted about that - 


> _ for decades, Border Patrol, Coast Guard & Customs folks have sifted-thru the 4 to 5-million dogs
> each year in shelters, plus breed- & all-breed-rescues, thru the willing help of shelter-staff & volunteers,
> rescue-vols & breed-rescues, who would alert them to likely dog-candidates: antsy dogs, play-intense,
> persistent - the VERY dogs that we know would make p*ss-poor pets, for precisely the reasons that
> ...


they were also DURING THAT TIME *trained with rewards* - not shock-collars, prongs or chokes, 
& their rewards were not metal-pipes for tug-games, either! :cursing: oxymoronic idiocy.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Deeds of task-Force-1 in Texas - 
Search & Rescue

notice that directly below him, a fellow-SAR-handler trains with shock. 
which dog would i rather be found by?... since i have seen the fallout from shock-collars, 
& *aggression* is the single most-common form, i'd rather not be found by a shock-trained SAR-k9, 
given my druthers.

http://tinyurl.com/3ssknny

notice that Bob evaluates SAR handler-&-dog teams all over the USA for certification? 
obviously, he's a total wuss - he trains with *rewards!* - & what could he possibly know?***

**Sarcasm alert **


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> he's a total wuss - he trains with *rewards!* - & what could he possibly know?


That "being nice" produces a very well behaved dog that's eager to work?
I got the "your dog is easy to train" comment yesterday from Pro WSD trainer, you know you did well when ppl say that! 
They just selected "easy dogs" not hard difficult ones which definitely require firm handling!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i have already posted about the disastrous regression of the USA Border-Patrol & Customs-k9 training - having *been told about it by a current handler who is nearing retirement, * & who frankly hopes to make it to that milestone without quitting in disgust.


Interesting that YOU claim that bad bites are due to harsh training and abusive methods while your expert says that it's due to, *"the lower thresholds of these [imported] dogs *_ "_ Hmm which one of you is correct?

Also interesting that he considers that the number of drives listed in their latest training manual is excessive. While I have a different theory on this from the CBP, I know one very successful trainer who has several pages, single spaced where he lists various drives. He considers that ball drive is different from Frisbee drive and that they are both different from stick drive. Doing this enables him to utilize each toy to its full advantage. There's no limit to the number of drives, as long as the trainer can deal with them. Yet he calls the list of 19 drives, _"craziness"_ And since you're silent on the matter it's reasonable to assume that you agree with him.

And nowhere in his critique is the inhumane and harsh training methods that you say result in bad bites.

Fairly consistently, and here again, you post a response that neither answers questions that have been asked of you nor does it support your previous statements. Lots of words but nothing on point. I guess this impresses some people. I'm not one of them.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪Baltimore Police Training K-9 Dog‬‏
> 
> the man in the background, encouraging & directing, is the department-head - who is operating the remote for the shock-collar.
> 
> notice the handler: kneels on, punches, throttles, suspends by the prong-collar, etc.


Another link but it does not support your argument that harsh handling/training leads to bad bites. Where are the news stories that support this? That was the supposition in your first few posts. The dog shown in this video should have been terrorizing entire neighborhoods. Yet you show no connection between this and his later work!



leashedForLife said:


> NOTE also that this is *S.O.P.* in many k9-patrol units;


I'll disagree. Please show us these _"SOP's."_



leashedForLife said:


> *Steve White* was hired to help the Balt. PD
> clean-up their public image, due to the public reaction... but many k9s are abused, unseen.
> this video was embarrassing because they were caught - not because they were sorry.


And how did Mr. White do in this endeavor. Do you have some news stories that glowingly refers to their greatly improved _"public image"_ after he was finished?



leashedForLife said:


> S.O.P.: Standard Operating Procedure: by the book performance.


Please show us some quotations that show such a _"procedure: by the book."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪NC Trooper Sgt. Charles Jones Abuses K-9 Partner‬‏
> 
> NC State-Trooper 'disciplines' "his" dog - except the dog is not his, & this is not "discipline".
> 
> ...


ANOTHER disgusting video but it does not support your proposition that handling/training like this results in bad bites on the public. Please show us a news story that has this dog inflicting such a bite.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪Girl, 13 attacked by Police dog‬‏
> 
> the idiot-handler turned his dog loose to 'exercise' in an unsecure emergency helipad,
> *directly adjacent to a middle-school;* the dog escaped the fence, ran to the soccer field
> ...


ANOTHER horrible situation but NOT ONE WORD to support your theory that rough/harsh handling/training resulted in this bite. Please show us the evidence that this dog was subjected to such handling or training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l places this in the subject line of her post. "no dog who was reward-trained has ever been certified as a police-patrol dog..." She placed quotation marks around it except that I didn't say it and I have no idea where it came from. Can you tell us l4l?

What *I did say * was this, _"There has NEVER been a police patrol dog that's been trained exclusively with the so−called "kinder gentler methods."_ For quite some time I've had a challenge on the Net open to anyone who can find me such a dog. No one has ever been able to do so. The finder's fee is $1,000. I'll be happy to post the details if someone thinks they know of such a dog.



leashedForLife said:


> gee... realllly?...


Had you quoted me accurately, the answer would be, _"YES, really."_ I was referred to Mr. Fisher (as I've been referred to Steve White) and wrote him supplying the details of my challenge. He did not accept it. And so my statement, shown above still stands.



leashedForLife said:


> this was published in 1996 - *the late, great John Fisher* trained the first reward-trained British patrol-k9; this book is his journal of how he did it. his dog achieved some of the highest scores of any dog tested, until that time.


Highest scores????? ROFL. Police dogs are not measure by scores achieved in competition, but how they perform on the street. I've spoken to people who saw this dog. He was about as weak a police patrol dog as has ever been seen.



leashedForLife said:


> he's not the only dog to have made patrol-k9 via reward-training - he's just the only one i know of,


You're wrong. He was NOT trained, as I said, *"exclusively with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." *



leashedForLife said:


> with a book detailing the process. John did use training-discs as an interruptor,


Thanks for proving my point. Use of these discs which you laughingly call _"an interruptor"_ is positive punishment. ANOTHER example of the lengths that some will go to so they can deny that they use +P.



leashedForLife said:


> but later found he did not need them to proof behaviors. and lest anyone misinterpret: the discs are a distinctive noise, nothing more. [some people assume they are thrown to HIT the dog, which is absolutely not the purpose.]


Makes no difference, it's +P.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> They NYPD section on "Wonder Dogs" was emphasising reward based training, tennis balls featured highly. Of course, I cannot know if they have skeletons in the cupboard they wish to keep private. The handlers however seemed far more clueful than those shown in the macho culture border patrol.


I'll guarantee that they do not exclusively use the so−called "kinder gentler methods." I've seen their work. And BTW, what you refer to as _"the macho culture bordere patrol"_ was not _"shown."_ There was some third party rambling that was unattributed. The stuff of urban legend.



RobD-BCactive said:


> There's a video of a news reporter getting bitten in face by a wonderfully trained police dog, with handler apparently oblivious to the warning sign. Every time LC posts about K9 reliability standards I think about that vid.


He wasn't one of my dogs. And since you bring it up in this discussion, can you show us the evidence that says that this dog was subjected to harsh handling/training; the theory proposed by l4l?



RobD-BCactive said:


> IIRC it's shown as an example of missed "whale eye" and consequence of not noticing the proximity discomfort body language. * Of course a rewards based dog would have likely growled, *


Hysterically funny. The _"rewards based dog would have likely [only] growled"_ But this dog, and BTW you have absolutely no idea how he was trained, bit. Are you serious? Really? ANOTHER of your famous assumptions.



RobD-BCactive said:


> but *someone* corrected the hell out of that "fault" I guess.


Please tell us how you know this or is it just another of your numerous assumptions?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> but the reporter ignored all the dog's back-off signals, too. And yes - i'd bet the dog was punished
> previously for growling, leaving him with a profoundly-stunted Early Warning System.


ROFLMFAO. Please show us evidence that this dog had been subjected to harsh handling/training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> But police patrol dogs must be trained using prong collars


I'm pretty sure that NO ONE has made such a statement in this thread. Please show us such a comment. 


Nicky10 said:


> It's wonderful to see more people in such traditional based training areas coming over to the positive side


Some of us have been using such methods for decades. We just know when they're appropriate and when they're not.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Thank you! That clip certainly fits the bill, it would likely have taken me a while to re-find it, if I'd been challenged.


I found it with a search for "police dog bites reporter" in about .12 seconds. It's the first four videos that show up, there are several more links to it and then several discussions about the incident.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The reporter cannot IMO be blamed for this, why should a TV reporter be an expert in reading body language, when he is getting clear "go go signals" from an *expert professional police K9 handler* with a carefully trained police dog?


_"Clear 'go go signals' "_ from the handler? Please point those out. One of the other videos on this incident says, "Officer John Beck ... is getting to know his new partner." He's a K−9 rookie and can hardly be called _"an expert professional police handler."_ The K−9 handler says, "He was playful with me but at that time I did not know his personality." He's just as shocked as the reporter when the dog bites, even though the dog was giving some pretty obvious signals. It looks to me as if the reporter was getting ready to lean in and give the dog a kiss.

Please show us some evidence that supports your contention that this was a _"carefully trained police dog?"_ Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. While you're doing that, please show us the evidence to support the theory that you folks are proposing throughout this thread, that this bite was due to harsh handling/training.



RobD-BCactive said:


> CM/DW fans should also note how often the dogs on that show, lick lips and look at someone, then remember what this dog did *without clear warning. * [Emphasis Added]


_"... without clear warning?"_ Do you really think this? IN THIS VIDEO of the incident the dog is clearly showing that he's uncomfortable as soon as the camera comes on with the reporter crouched next to him, at :32. TWO seconds later he looks to his handler for support in what he perceives to be a fearful situation. ONE second later he's lip licking. The dog is NEVER comfortable with the reporter. How can you say that this occurred _"without clear warning."_ the warning signs are many and they are very clear to anyone who can read a dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> the USA-Border Patrol, Customs-k9s & Coast-Guard detection-dogs *used to be* a mixed-bag,
> chosen from among the dogs in shelters via a nomination & testing process. i also posted about that 


Missions change and this one is no different. It used to be that these dogs were used ONLY for detection work. That's not the case today. While some are single purpose detection dogs MANY are cross trained to find humans who are hiding from the officers. Those people are often dangerous and so the dogs are trained to bite. Many of them are cross trained as well, to detect various substances.

Such dogs (suitable for the bite work) are rarely found in shelters or rescues.

L4l then quotes from something she says she wrote earlier. 


> Popsicle made personal-appearances at schools, Bark in the Park, & other public or PR-events; so did the many other ex-shelter dogs, and they won a lot of hearts & minds by being approachable, trustworthy & affable; CAN A MALIGATOR do the same PR-function? i would say, not 


You'd be wrong. I know many Mals that can do this.

L4l continues,


> a dozen kids could pet Popsicle and all he did was grin & wag. i do not see a hotshot SUPERDOG tolerating such close contact.


No idea what a _"hot shot SUPERDOG"_ is but I've seen dozens of Mals doing this.

L4l continues,


> thankfully, the Agriculture-pests program is the USDA - their training is reward-based,


Most detection work is.

L4l continues,


> they DO use Beagles, & their training program, dog-temperament preferences, etc, have not changed for the worse.


Their mission has also not changed as has that of the CBP.

L4l continues,


> it seems to me that in exchange for the chance to brag that OUR DOGS ARE TOUGH!... and WE ARE THE TOUGHEST IN LAW-ENFORCEMENT... the Border-Patrol has shot themselves in the foot, by becoming more-dangerous, less-approachable, more-threatening & less appealing.


Can you direct us to something official from the CBP saying that _"Our dogs are tough? And we are the toughest in law enforcement."_ Or are you just trying to put words into their mouth?

L4l continues,


> Maligators & hot-shot GSDs are in a word, overkill - they are surplus to the task at hand, & only complicate it.


The dogs you mention, _"beagles, mixed breeds, pit-types -shelter dogs"_ and _" many pit-types, Lab-mixes, Aussie-crosses, BC-blends, GSD-mixes, and other nonstandard dogs"_ are not suited for the mission of finding dangerous hiding humans. Such dogs must be prepared to bite those people when necessary and appropriate.

L4l continues,


> they have also hiked the co$t of their programs by going to a Buy-European model; before, they had literally millions of dogs to choose from, pre-filtered by thousands of volunteers who did their part of the evaluation for NOTHING. even if the dog did not meet their criteria, the cost of testing was not the same as the costs for purchase, shipping, quarantine, etcetera, from overseas.


It's been shown repeatedly that if one is looking for a dog that has the level and balance of drives such that he'll hunt for a human and bite him when appropriate the LEAST EXPENSIVE way to get there is to purchase an import that's been started in one of the many biting sports that are common in Europe. Trying to get such dogs from a shelter while it appears cheap on the surface means that MOST of them will wash out wasting the trainer's and handler's time and forcing them to start from scratch again. Their time is far more expensive than the cost of importing these dogs and the quality of the dogs is better too!

Even if one is just looking for a single purpose detector dog it's still less expensive in the long run to go with an import. It's a rare shelter dog that will have the correct level and balance of drives to work under the conditions of that job.

L4l continues,


> An antsy, active, healthy young dog in rural Colorado or NM or Indiana or Iowa is likely to stay right there in that shelter


Sorry but it's the job of CBP to accomplish their mission, which does not includes rescuing dogs from shelters. Just because a dog is _"antsy, active, healthy and young"_ DOES NOT MEAN that he'll make a good detector dog.

AND AGAIN we have no connection between this post and your original theory that harsh handling/training leads to bad bites. Can you show us some link between this post and that topic? In other threads I've seen you consistently demand that people who are off−topic divert back to the topic. I recall you threatening to have a thread deleted if people did not. Yet since your original post you've been off−topic and show no signs of either getting back to it or supporting your original theory.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Bob Deeds of task-Force-1 in Texas -
> Search & Rescue
> 
> notice that directly below him, a fellow-SAR-handler trains with shock.
> ...


Notice that Mr. Deeds and Ms. Collins are on the SAME SAR GROUP AND THE SAME FEMA TASK FORCE. ROFL. They've passed the identical certification and either dog would be successful. If a dog shows any aggression they fail the FEMA test. This is done if the aggression shows up anytime in their career. AGAIN you show us only that YOU don't know how to use an Ecollar properly. Many of the rest of us do. BTW I've seen fallout and aggression from quite a few dogs trained with the so−called "kinder gentler methods."



leashedForLife said:


> notice that Bob evaluates SAR handler-&-dog teams all over the USA for certification?


As does Ms. Collins.



leashedForLife said:


> obviously, he's a total wuss - he trains with *rewards!* - & what could he possibly know?


Just about all detector dogs are trained with rewards. That hardly means that other methods are not used as well. In fact, so are the dogs that I train with Ecollars. When has anyone said that anyone who trains with rewards is _"a total wuss?"_ I'd bet that Mr. Deeds uses punishment when it's appropriate in his training.

AND here we have ANOTHER post that has no relation to your theory that harsh handling/training results in bad bites. Are you EVER going to get back to your own topic? LOL.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> i have already posted about the disastrous regression of the USA Border-Patrol & Customs-k9 training -
> having *been told about it by a current handler who is nearing retirement, * & who frankly hopes
> to make it to that milestone without quitting in disgust.


I hope he manages to Terry though no-one would blame him if he did quit in disgust.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪Baltimore Police Training K-9 Dog‬‏
> 
> the man in the background, encouraging & directing, is the department-head - who is operating
> the remote for the shock-collar.
> ...


Dreadful. How can these people proclaim to love dogs yet happily abuse them in the name of 'training'?


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪NC Trooper Sgt. Charles Jones Abuses K-9 Partner‬‏
> 
> NC State-Trooper 'disciplines' "his" dog - except the dog is not his, & this is not "discipline".
> 
> ...


He lost his job purely because he got caught. Many won't be as they will have learned from that S.O.B's 'mistake.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> But police patrol dogs must be trained using prong collars how dare you suggest otherwise . It's wonderful to see more people in such traditional based training areas coming over to the positive side


Yes, disgusting not to use spikes or shocks to 'correct' a dog for getting it wrong! :rolleyes5: That's not training you see!

I have full respect for crossover trainers. For those who stubbornly stick to what they believe instead of improving their knowledge and learning, I don't have any.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> notice that Bob evaluates SAR handler-&-dog teams all over the USA for certification?
> obviously, he's a total wuss - he trains with *rewards!* - & what could he possibly know?***
> 
> **Sarcasm alert **


Exactly! The softy!  Fancy being able to achieve success with those methods when it is far easier just to press a button on a remote of 'correct' with a collar full of spikes! What on earth is he thinking of?:nono:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> Dreadful. How can these people proclaim to love dogs yet happily abuse them in the name of 'training'?


Good question. It happens much in the same way that you folks claim to love dogs yet happily are rude to people who have different opinions than you do.

There's some sort of disconnect that allows the behavior.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> He lost his job purely because he got caught.


Well, Duh. Much in the same way that the only criminals who go to jail are the ones who get caught.



CarolineH said:


> Many won't be as they will have learned from that S.O.B's 'mistake.


It seems that it's still up in the air. CLICK HERE


> RALEIGH, N.C.  North Carolina Highway Patrol leaders headed to Wake County Superior Court Wednesday to appeal a decision that they must rehire a former trooper who was accused of mistreating his K-9 partner.
> 
> In October 2008, the State Personnel Commission ordered the Highway Patrol to reinstate Jones, finding that it did not have "just cause to dismiss for unacceptable personal conduct. It did find, however, "sufficient cause for discipline for unsatisfactory job performance.
> 
> ...


They've gone to a detector−dog−only program, a typical administrative response to a political issue. This puts the troopers are greater risk because they no longer have search dogs available.

Jones is now working at another police department. He's not a handler.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> I have full respect for crossover trainers. For those who stubbornly stick to what they believe instead of improving their knowledge and learning, I don't have any.


I'm with you. I think that anyone who calls himself a dog trainer should know about ALL tools that can be used in dog training, even if they choose not to use them. Sadly, there are many here who have closed minds.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> _"... without clear warning?"_ Do you really think this? IN THIS VIDEO of the incident the dog is clearly showing that he's uncomfortable as soon as the camera comes on with the reporter crouched next to him, at :32. TWO seconds later he looks to his handler for support in what he perceives to be a fearful situation. ONE second later he's lip licking. The dog is NEVER comfortable with the reporter. How can you say that this occurred _"without clear warning."_ the warning signs are many and they are very clear to anyone who can read a dog.


That's the version I saw before, thank you. Yes, the stress is obvious, if you can't see that and stop the reporter leaning over the dog and putting his face in harms way with *both hands on dog's throat*, you're setting the dog up to fail. It's like watching the Dog Whisperer and predicting bite risk, often they get away with it, but many times they don't.

The problem is the Dog Handler just ain't looking or protecting his dog against the rude looming by the reporter who does not know the dog. Another reason to use rewards training, as then you observe your dog carefully.

My dog would shy away and be allowed to express himself. If a dog is too direct & in his face, he shows avoidance or even growls and I make sure he has space. With people in a pub who are drunk and over friendly, then I watch very carefully, rather than be complacent and expect the dog to just lump it.

Perhaps you're too used to stressing dogs, so are desensitised to the warning signs and regard them as normal; that would explain a few things.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

CarolineH said:


> [the NC-state trooper, caught on camera hanging & kicking his k9-partner,] lost his job
> purely because he got caught. Many won't be as they will have learned from that S.O.B's 'mistake'.


i can't "like" this - but i sadly have to agree with it. 
but i also think that the ubiquitous cell-phone has made it harder to get away with illegalities - 
*even for the police, or the military, or other govt-representatives.*

the sheer numbers of people with cell-phones, just as in the Middle East, makes controlling 
the information that gets to news-agents & the public-media infinitely harder - that's a good thing.

we can only hope that more people are in the right place to catch the perpetrators, with the will 
to face anger & even a backlash from the authorities. Un-masking official brutality is IMO, good - 
but that does not make it 'safe', only right... again IMO. It can be very dangerous to tell truth 
to power, or to tell or show truths *about* power - which as we know, can corrupt even good people.

if k9-trainers, instructors & handlers are constantly told, _'this is how it's done, we've done it this way 
for decades, & we know what we're doing',_ it becomes very hard to disagree; it's pervasive, 
if not persuasive. *Someone has to show them - * as John Fisher did - that another way does work, 
that reward-based training can produce dogs who are thoroughly proofed & reliable, vs the brittle dogs 
who are often produced by truly severe training, whose behavior can break-down under sudden stress 
or in novel circumstances.

the automatic use of aversives & corrections, even sting-operations in training [which i regard with horror, 
as *U lie to the dog* - tell her/him to do something *specifically so that U can punish that dog*] - 
is widespread, altho not everywhere. [*Edit:* Danish] military, police & other govt-authorities 
may use only mild aversives in training - this has been for some time; & as this book shows, other 
European authorities are also dumping violence in training for motivational methods.

as angry & heartsick as that video made me, i have real hope that such abuse will become rare, 
& i can only try to speed the day. Thank DoG for Bob Bailey, & i wish he had as much currency with the Feds 
on this side of the Pond now, as he does with the various European k9-operations. 
it's a doggone shame, given his track record with the Navy in particular, that 'fashion' has once again 
overturned a 40-year-old successful record of reward-based training in the Customs & Border-Patrol 
in Bob's home country while he's making history with k9-units abroad.

_'A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country & in his own house.'_ :nonod:

but thankfully the BOOK he incubated in others is here - & can speak for him.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> the sheer numbers of people with cell-phones, just as in the Middle East, makes controlling
> the information that gets to news-agents & the public-media infinitely harder - that's a good thing.
> 
> we can only hope that more people are in the right place to catch the perpetrators, with the will
> to face anger & even a backlash from the authorities. Un-masking official brutality is IMO, good


Quite right, self policing seems to have a poor track record; they excuse themselves rather than maintain a standard.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The problem is the Dog Handler just ain't looking or protecting his dog against the rude looming by the reporter who does not know the dog. Another reason to use rewards training, as then you observe your dog carefully.


Yes. What a shame that the handler was not reading his dog. Maybe he just has not been taught how to read his dog or maybe he had a distorted understanding of what his dogs signals meant?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That's the version I saw before, thank you. Yes, the stress is obvious,


I certainly think it is however you wrote _"... then remember what this dog did *without clear warning."*_ It seems that YOU thought that the dog did not give any warning of the pressure he felt. Can you explain please?



RobD-BCactive said:


> if you can't see that and stop the reporter leaning over the dog and putting his face in harms way with both hands on dog's throat,


I can clearly see it and have pointed it out to you. But it seems that until I did, you did not see it. the dog is clearly uncomfortable as soon as the camera starts to roll. The _"hands on the dog's throat"_ was only part of the problem. Just as much was the proximity of his face and body and the final straw was when he raised his head above the dog and started to move his head over the dog's head.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Another reason to use rewards training, as then you observe your dog carefully.


*ALL * good training involves watching the dog closely to see how he's responding to what's being done. This is certainly NOT only the province of _"rewards training."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> My dog would shy away and be allowed to express himself. If a dog is too direct & in his face, he shows avoidance or even growls and I make sure he has space. With people in a pub who are drunk and over friendly, then I watch very carefully, rather than be complacent and expect the dog to just lump it.


I doubt that you're at the level of competence, which means "very little competence," as a K−9 handler who's fresh out of school. As to your dog, _"shy[ing] away,"_ this is more a matter of temperament, drives and training, than anything else. The dog in the video has specifically been trained NOT to shy away when threatened.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Perhaps you're too used to stressing dogs


I'd bet that I don't put any more stress on a dog than you do. But this is yet ANOTHER of your assumptions.



RobD-BCactive said:


> so are desensitised to the warning signs and regard them as normal; that would explain a few things.


When have I ever said that I regard such warning signs as _"normal?"_ I probably see them more than many trainers because much of my work is problem solving, working on the issues that other trainers have created and/or not been able to solve.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> but i also think that the ubiquitous cell-phone has made it harder to get away with illegalities -
> *even for the police, or the military, or other govt-representatives.*
> 
> the sheer numbers of people with cell-phones, just as in the Middle East, makes controlling the information that gets to news-agents & the public-media infinitely harder - that's a good thing.


Interesting that you aim this comment at _"the police, the military or other gov't representatives."_ completely overlooking the fact that it makes it harder for EVERYONE, not just representatives of the government to get away with things these days. Cell phones and YouTube often just allow people to show the world just how idiotic they can be.



leashedForLife said:


> we can only hope that more people are in the right place to catch the perpetrators, with the will to face anger & even a backlash from the authorities. Un-masking official brutality is IMO, good - but that does not make it 'safe', only right... again IMO. It can be very dangerous to tell truth to power, or to tell or show truths *about* power - which as we know, can corrupt even good people.


There have been quite a few videos posted in this discussion. Can you supply some links to news stories that show the _"anger and backlash from the authorities?"_ for revealing this sort of information?



leashedForLife said:


> if k9-trainers, instructors & handlers are constantly told, _'this is how it's done, we've done it this way
> for decades, & we know what we're doing',_ it becomes very hard to disagree; it's pervasive,
> if not persuasive.


Quite wrong. It's certainly persuasive and invasive but it's hardly pervasive. I'm an example that it's not and I'm hardly the only one.



leashedForLife said:


> Someone has to show them - as John Fisher did - that another way does work,


Except that he didn't show anyone anything. His try at training a police patrol exclusively with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" was a failure. No one else has done it either.



leashedForLife said:


> that reward-based training can produce dogs who are thoroughly proofed & reliable, vs the brittle dogs


Show us one l4l. You won't. You can't. if police patrol dogs could be produced exclusively with such methods there would be hundreds, perhaps thousands of them, yet you can't show us even one.



leashedForLife said:


> who are often produced by truly severe training, whose behavior can break-down under sudden stress or in novel circumstances.


We're still waiting for you to show us even one definitive piece of evidence that shows that harsh handling/training methods lead to bad bites.



leashedForLife said:


> Dutch military, police & other govt-authorities are prohibited from using aversives in training, & have been for some time; & as this book shows


What nonsense. Show us documentation that says that the _"Dutch military, police & other gov't authorities are prohibited from using aversives in training."_ It's completely impossible to train a dog without using aversives, no matter how much one tries.



leashedForLife said:


> other European authorities are also dumping violence in training for motivational methods.


The term _"motivational methods"_ really is quite vague. It means nothing more than using something that motivates the dog to perform. Avoidance of discomfort is motivating. A dog lying in the sun who gets too warm is "motivated" to move into the shade.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Quite right, self policing seems to have a poor track record; they excuse themselves rather than maintain a standard.


What twaddle! You take a few videos and then paint the entire industry, thousands of dogs and handlers, with such a comment.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

& BTW, it was my error - Not the Dutch, the *Danes.* 
i apologize for the confusion.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

to hold us for the nonce, while i await permit to cross-post: this website - 
from a local branch of the Danish national police-dog assoc: 
Øvelse 11 - Frygtløshed for slag

It describes in detail every test a dog must pass to become a patrol-k9. 
Google translate will get the gist of it, if not the details. 
the link is to the test of fearlessnes towards hitting; an important quote:
_"The stick must be used *in a controlled way*, & *relative to its thickness*.
The dog must *never* purposely be hit in the head or on the legs. OTOH, the strikes must be felt by the dog."_

so blows must be on the body only, & so as to be felt by the dog; the agitator must use any stick 
mindful of its diameter, & use a lighter hand with a heavier diameter.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

EXERCISE 11: fearlessness FOR STROKE (ALL CLASSES)
Points: 19 - Appeal: 10/10

Stop 10 points.
Site transport 5 points.
Vanishing Trials 4 points.

A figure wearing visible protection-sleeve moves approx 75-meters out, in open terrain. The figure is armed 
with a stick ["blow stick - Leather"] in hand. The dog must initially be in line; it is not necessary that the line be slack, 
but the dog must be connected to the linefeed.
Left-handed handlers keep their dog on their right side.

The handler demands the figure stop; instead, the agitator runs away, & the handler sends the dog in pursuit. 
The handler must immediately after shouting, Stop!, run with the dog.
When the dog is approx 50-m from the figure, the agitator turns & runs with stick raised threateningly toward 
the dog; the dog must stand fearless or continue running toward the agitator, who delivers 2 light blows 
to the dog's back or sides.

The dog must despite the blows, maintain a firm bite, even in the face of resistance or threat. If the agitator 
becomes passive, the dog must independently release & move back to guard/watch. The transition to guard 
must be immediate, as soon as the agitator is passive.

Strikes with the stick must be given in a restrained manner, adapted to stick thickness, & the dog must not be 
deliberately hit in the head or legs. On the other hand, it should also be blows that can be felt by the dog. 
If the agitator drops the stick & flees from the dog, now without command the dog must stop them efficiently 
by taking hold of the protected arm.

The dog must be effective in attack and obedient to the lead. Lack of consistency and/or obedience to be deducted in points.

Only a constant bite can give full points, and the dog must immediately release upon the handler's command. 
If the dog begins to guard, this must be effective. Inefficiencies in the guard deduct 1 point.

When the handler has disarmed the stopped agitator, in the next step, the handler commands the dog to out 
and heel, or if the dog is guarding, sends the dog to heel.

Once the agitator has been arrested & disarmed, this site transport to the judge begins. During site transport, 
the handler must walk with the dog at heel approx. 5-m behind the agitator.

During the transport  after prior agreement with the judges - the agitator may attempt to escape.
The dog is now, without command from the handler, immediately to stop their escape by effectively taking 
hold of the protected arm. The dog must maintain a firm bite despite resistance or threat. If the agitator 
becomes passive, the dog must independently release & move to guard.

The change to guard/watch must happen immediately upon the agitator becoming passive.
The escape will end with the handler one step away from the agitator, when the handler commands the dog to out. 
Then command the dog to heel and the exercise ends.
If the dog is guarding/watching, command the dog to heel, and the exercise ends.

For each additional command or animation deduct 1 point.
If Part 1 of the exercise did not achieve points for the stop, halt the exercise.
Keep the dog collared during transport, stop the exercise, and skip the flight-test.

The same applies if the dog during transport goes back & bites the figure in protective sleeve, 
or otherwise did not earn points in site-transport. In these cases, give only points for the stop.
[halting the fleeing agitator]


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I certainly think it is however you wrote _"... then remember what this dog did *without clear warning."*_ It seems that YOU thought that the dog did not give any warning of the pressure he felt. Can you explain please?


Yes I meant a warning that was *clear and audible enough* for a general member of the public to understand, or a complacent police dog handler who's lounging about and people who are oblivious to stress signs.

Everyone understands a dog growling and reward it by backing off in general, unless they are dangerously misguided.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> your theory that harsh handling/training results in bad bites. Are you EVER going to get back to your own topic? LOL.


Her theory, since when? 

Just about every Rescue dog owner with a problem dog complains about past abusive and harsh handling, *causing* their dog not to be as trustworthy as better treated dogs. Even terrorist organisations like IRA would have thugs go and beat their guard dogs, so they would be vicious with strangers.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Her theory, since when?
> 
> Just about every Rescue dog owner with a problem dog complains about past abusive and harsh handling, *causing* their dog not to be as trustworthy as better treated dogs.


stupid irresponsible post. you dont work in rescue, as far as i know you dont own one and any new readers seeing it could think twice abouting rescuing. I couldnt give a monkeys about the views expressed in this thread, but do not make generalisations about something you know nothing about.

i have helped with rescues and have owned 5. none conform the the rubbish posted above


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> What twaddle! You take a few videos and then paint the entire industry, thousands of dogs and handlers, with such a comment.


What tiresome nonsense... The fact is that police have a lousy history of self discipline and that's why in many jurisdictions there is an independent arm that investigates and why cops in general have such disdain and contempt for internal affair members.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Just about every Rescue dog owner with a problem dog complains about past abusive and harsh handling, causing their dog not to be as trustworthy as better treated dogs


I never met a rescue dog owner yet who knows anything at all about their rescues' background & non have ever said anything like that. The rescues are full up to the brims and almost every rescue in the country has a waiting list, your post is just made up make beleive stuff unless yopu can name a few rescues who support your claims, I don't have any expectations you will do that because it's untrue.

Sarha Muncke of Chiltern Rescue (GODT accredited trainer) has spoken out openly about it being down to owners showing lack of leadership, she has over 30 years experience of rescueing dogs, see link 1 & click Sarah Muncke. Lack of leadership and bad training is also exactly what the largest study ever done on territorial aggression ever found, that was the 2009 Cordoba University study, see link 2 below for google links to that study.

Link 1, click Sarah Munke
Trained For Life | Articles on Dog Behaviour

Link 2, Click any link with Cordoba university in it.
dogs cordoba university - Google Search

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Statler said:


> stupid irresponsible post. you dont work in rescue, as far as i know you dont own one and any new readers seeing it could think twice abouting rescuing. I couldnt give a monkeys about the views expressed in this thread, but do not make generalisations about something you know nothing about.
> 
> i have helped with rescues and have owned 5. none conform the the rubbish posted above


 Note the word "problem dog", very many rescues are very sweet dogs and it is baffling why they were turned in.

Anyone who hangs out with rescue dogs, sees them flinch and learns to be cautious, many dogs have been hit. To be in denial of that, is just silly.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> I never met a rescue dog owner yet who knows anything at all about their rescues' background & non have ever said anything like that


Very odd, because the ppl I walk the dog with, often do know a little. Perhaps ppl don't bother telling you anything, they just nod and smile, whilst you air some conspiracy theory?

For instance last week a GSD was from RSPCA, they'd had to work on her a lot and they knew she'd been poisoned, and poorly trained to be a guard dog, in order to make her vicious, in the way that LC denies.

Many owners do indeed know very little, but that's not always the case. It's often very obvious somethings wrong.

I've met a few rescued from puppy mills, where they've been closely confined in wire cages for years, to breed litter after litter.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

read it & weep. 
BBC News | AFRICA | SA police dogs 'should be killed'

The dog whisperer - swissinfo 


> _ Schlegel says... *police dogs have traditionally received the worst training*, based on negative feedback. _
> [by which they mean positive-punishment ] _*They were beaten if they did anything wrong, rather than praised
> if they succeeded.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> EXERCISE 11: fearlessness FOR STROKE (ALL CLASSES)
> Points: 19 - Appeal: 10/10
> 
> Stop 10 points.
> ...


There's nothing unique or original here. Sounds like any police dog trials. The problem is that many will train for the certification instead of for the street. That's a common issue everywhere.



leashedForLife said:


> The handler demands the figure stop; instead, the agitator runs away, & the handler sends the dog in pursuit.
> The handler must immediately after shouting, Stop!, run with the dog.
> When the dog is approx 50-m from the figure, the agitator turns & runs with stick raised threateningly toward the dog; the dog must stand fearless or continue running toward the agitator, who delivers 2 light blows to the dog's back or sides. The dog must despite the blows, maintain a firm bite, even in the face of resistance or threat.


Sounds like a standard SchH Courage Test which really does not measure the dog's courage since it can be trained for. Pattern training is a VERY BAD thing for PSD's.



leashedForLife said:


> If the agitator becomes passive, the dog must independently release & move back to guard/watch. The transition to guard must be immediate, as soon as the agitator is passive.


More standard stuff. This is common in much of Europe. I think it's a mistake. Just because someone stops fighting does not mean that they're truly stopped resisting. They might be reaching for a weapon or planning their escape. I want a dog to keep fighting until I give him the command to stop. I may have the dog stay at the decoy, recall him to me or stop him somewhere in between us. In most of the US the dogs are trained to keep biting until commanded to release.

BTW is there some reason that you've posted this information? It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the topic at all.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Yes I meant a warning that was *clear and audible enough* for a general member of the public to understand, or a complacent police dog handler who's lounging about


ROFL. Your attempts at cheap shots are indeed rude ... _"complacent police dog handler who's lounging about,"_ but it's what I've come to expect from some of you folks. In any case this is yet ANOTHER assumption from you. He was OBVIOUSLY NOT _"lounging about."_ It's far more likely that he was not trained in his academy class to recognize these signs.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Everyone understands a dog growling and reward it by backing off in general, unless they are dangerously misguided.


Oops, here's a hole in your training, advanced though you want us to believe that it is. Not every growl is a threat that requires _"backing off"_ from. I know of many dogs who growl during play, in fact I've got one right here. The louder she growls, the more fun she's having. Novices and based on your comment, that apparently would include you, are frightened by it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Her theory, since when?


Since an early comment she made in this thread, _"police-dogs & other k9s *must be* trained humanely to be safe in public"_ and was discussing harsh handling/training and then she tried to link it to the bite of the child at Dulles Airport. Notice that she's not supplied the slightest bit of information to support her position.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Just about every Rescue dog owner with a problem dog complains about past abusive and harsh handling, *causing* their dog not to be as trustworthy as better treated dogs.


So if similarly, if I _"complained"_ that the moon was made of green cheese, that would make it so? Since when does someone _"complaining"_ that something is a certain way, make it so? How do you know that the dog was _"not to be as trustworthy as [other] ... dogs"_ due to genetics? How do you know that the dog was not abused by other dogs? How do you know any of this? Of course these questions are rhetorical because the truth is that you know NONE of these things.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Even terrorist organisations like IRA would have thugs go and beat their guard dogs, so they would be vicious with strangers.


L4l asserted that harsh training methods/handling results in bad bites (meaning bites on inappropriate persons) from police service dogs. So far she's not supplied the slightest bit of evidence to support such a statement and neither have you. In truth the overwhelming majority of such bites come from handler errors. I've been watching this for over 30 years. But you have to stick with the _"harsh handling/training"_ argument or the house of cards comes tumbling down, as it is now.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Corinthian said:


> What tiresome nonsense...


I agree, but you keep putting it out.



Corinthian said:


> The fact is that police have a lousy history of self discipline


Talk about _"tiresome nonsense!"_ You too seem to LOVE the broad brush. The TRUTH is that SOME police departments have a lousy history of self discipline. Many have an excellent history of it. My department was one such place.



Corinthian said:


> and that's why in many jurisdictions there is an independent arm that investigates


Many police departments have such things as civilian review boards so that there is an independent group that reviews their actions. Even if the police do an excellent job of reviewing their own actions and complaints, there is an appearance of evil that exists.



Corinthian said:


> and why cops in general have such disdain and contempt for internal affair members.


 The reality is that only dirty cops don't like IA. The rest of us welcome their attention. We know that most of the complaints that come from the public have no basis in fact and welcome their investigation.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Typical negligent discharge from you yet again. Note the word "problem dog", very many rescues are very sweet dogs and it is baffling why they were turned in.


WHY DOGS END UP IN SHELTERS. 

Moving
Landlord not allowing pet
Too many animals in household
Cost of pet maintenance
Owner having personal problems
Inadequate facilities
No homes available for litter mates
Having no time for pet
Pet illness(es)
Biting

Of course some of them are _"sweet."_ You've used the term _"problem dog"_ as if it had some universal meaning. It does not. A problem can be anything the owner thinks it is, as can be seen from this list that I've supplied. MOST of them *do not *include being _"trustworthy."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> Anyone who hangs out with rescue dogs, sees them flinch and learns to be cautious, many dogs have been hit. To be in denial of that, is just silly.


I just LOVE your numerous assumptions and especially the way that you imagine cause and effect relationships at every turn. A dog does not have to be hit or endure harsh handling/training to learn to flinch. It can come from many other sources but, of course, because it suits your argument, you make ANOTHER assumption.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

SleepyBones wrote, _"I never met a rescue dog owner yet who knows anything at all about their rescues' background & non have ever said anything like that."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> Very odd, because the ppl I walk the dog with, often do know a little.


Good grief, what nonsense! They "know" what the rescue has told them and often those people make up anecdotes to help get the dogs adopted out. Rarely do they know the real history of the dog. Only the very gullible and the very stupid believe everything they're told by a rescue organization.



RobD-BCactive said:


> For instance last week a GSD was from RSPCA, they'd had to work on her a lot and they knew she'd been poisoned, and poorly trained to be a guard dog,


She'd been _"poisoned"_ to _"train"_ her to be a _"guard dog?"_ somehow I doubt this is true.



RobD-BCactive said:


> in order to make her vicious, *in the way that LC denies. * [Emphasis Added]


And I love the way that you try to put words into my mouth. But as always, it won't work. I'm here to show people the despicable way you try to twist my words. What I ACTUALLY said was that there's *no evidence to support the contention that harsh handling/training of a police dog results in bad bites; *and I challenged l4l who made the original allegation to show us some support for her statement. Since you've now joined in with her, I issue the same challenge to you.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Many owners do indeed know very little,


The fact is that FEW owners know very little about their rescue dog's history. Either they guess, based on nonsense such as you've proposed, or the shelter tells them a story to tug on their heart strings.



RobD-BCactive said:


> but that's not always the case.


It's the case MOST of the time.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> _ Drive Reduction Theory
> 
> A popular theory of the 1940s & 1950s that attributed behavior to the desire to reduce tension produced
> by primary (biological) or secondary (acquired) drives.
> ...


see - 
Drive Reduction Theory - Psychology Experiments, Tension, Person, Reduced, Explain, Instance, and Attributed


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

Ok this has been tidied a little and re-opened. Now I would like to ask *ALL* posters on this and other *DISCUSSION!!* threads to just remember these simple little requests

*DO NOT GET PERSONAL

IF YOU CAN NOT AGREE THEN AGREE TO DISAGREE POLITELY (nows theres a thought) :eek6:*

We are all allowed to agree to disagree on methods of this, that and the other, heck we can also disagree on the correct way to make bolagnase sauce, but for pitys sake do so politely. The personal bickering amonst the people on here that others look to for help and advice is/can be a little off putting.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

a remote-controlled reward device for teaching odor-detection 
YouTube - ‪Detection Dog Training "Passive Alert" Part 1 of 3‬‏

it delivers a ball, a rag [to shake or tug, the dog can take it to the handler for tug like a bringsel], 
or another reward - like a treat, in the very-first instance with the standing-search at the plywood wall.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Good grief, what nonsense! They "know" what the rescue has told them and often those people make up anecdotes to help get the dogs adopted out. Rarely do they know the real history of the dog. Only the very gullible and the very stupid believe everything they're told by a rescue organization.
> 
> She'd been _"poisoned"_ to _"train"_ her to be a _"guard dog?"_ somehow I doubt this is true


I'm sure readers will find your views and concern very charming. Quite how behavioural problems and poor health, help a dog be adopted, when it is clearly an expensive "project" requiring great commitment is not apparent to me.

The RSPCA GSD had some health issues still and was apparently brought in poisoned; it was clear to me that she was not fully sound which is how I was told. The dog needed serious rehabilitiation also behaviourly, it would be irresponsible not to pass on such information as was known, when placing the dog into a suitable home.

Seperate incidents obviously, no suggestion was made that the poisoning, was intended as security training. Perhaps it was dumped anti-freeze or someone thought it would solve the problem of a dog barking.

Having witnessed a poisoned dog in a street (whilst abroad); I can personally assure you that such events can and do happen. The reader can decide for themselves whether poor training and neglect, can end due to an incident such as poisoning.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> RobD-BCactive said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I meant a warning that was *clear and audible enough* for a general member of the public to understand, or a complacent police dog handler who's lounging about and people who are oblivious to stress signs.
> ...


I'll highlight this post as an example of Lou's misdirection technique, firing so many bullets noone can be bothered to read the thread.

The context we were discussing was clearly not a play situation. The dog was not playing, but being petted.

There was no audible warning, the policeman was indeed lounging and relaxed leaning back as anyone can see. Furthermore the reporter was taken totally by surprise.

Anyone can see that was the situation, talking about play growls in the context suggests someone clutching at any available straw.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Powered by Google Docs

The *Deferred Final Response Method* for Training Substance Detection Dogs:
Trouble-Shooting the Final Response
by Stewart Hilliard, PhD; Chief, Military Working Dog Course; 341 TRS/Lackland AFB, Feb 2007

Lackland Air-Force Base is k9-central for many mil-k9s, where they are trained initially, return for vet-care 
other than initial-stabilize or wellness care [which is done at their deployed location or nearby], 
& return for their retirement to civvy-life with an approved adopter. Advanced surgeries, joint repair, 
etc, are done here, but a dog injured on duty in North Africa would be stabilized on site, flown 
to Germany for extensive first-treatment, thence to Lackland-AFB for advanced surgery or Phys-Therapy.

the 'final response' being polished is the SIT when indicating odor - altho dogs can freeze & stare, 
a sit is greatly to be preferred as it is definitive; even a novice handler can notice & affirm it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> I'd bet that Mr. Deeds uses punishment when it's appropriate in his training.


direct quotes from Mr Deeds will be found here - 
Pet Forums Community - View Single Post - Working, Advanced or Bite-Sport dogs who were trained using rewards


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Bob Deeds said:


> .....This dog was trained with *all positive-methods*. She was a totally green pound-pup when I got her.
> I held her back for about 4-months to let her mature. We certified with about 8 months of work.
> I'm currently working on getting a Schutzhund dog up & running, with* all positive methods.*


But you argue elsewhere that "all positive methods" is a myth. By your logic Bob Deeds is engaging in "deliberate reconstruction of the facts,or complete inability to comprehend."


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

arlow said:


> But you argue elsewhere that "all positive methods" is a myth. By your logic Bob Deeds is engaging in "deliberate reconstruction of the facts, or complete inability to comprehend."


i'm not responsible for Mr Deeds use of terms - i have explained my own repeatedly, 
& find it is generally either ignored or attacked by the recipient.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Right, you're not responsible for Mr. Deed's choice of words. But by your words, "purely positive" is a myth which means Mr. Deed's methods include some form of punishment, which was, I believe, Lou's point.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Powered by Google Docs

Dept of the Army, Pamphlet 19012
Military Police Military Working Dog Program 
HQ, Dept of the Army; Washington, DC
30 September 1993


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

In this case I really don't think the exact wording matters much - the point remains the same. 

Most dog training of this nature is carried out using "yank and stomp" methods that rely heavily on painful physical corrections, including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking, etc.

Mr Deeds methods train without these things, using methods based on rewards / positive reinforcement. On a technical note, yes he will use some form of "punishment" but the methods do not including training through fear of physical pain, or risk serious injury, etc.

I don't think the dogs care what constitutes "punishment" according to Skinner et al; but I do think they would prefer to have fun rather than pain!


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

This is slightly more up to date. 
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_12.pdf
Quote
Sustainment training is mandatory for all MWD teams in garrison and while deployed.
Without *positive* reinforcement for performing a task correctly, the MWD will lose interest in performing the task and the skill will deteriorate rapidly.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Sustainment training is mandatory for all MWD teams in garrison and while deployed.
> Without positive reinforcement for performing a task correctly, the MWD will lose interest in performing the task and the skill will deteriorate rapidly.


I noticed you emphasised 'positive' reinforcement. Can you explain why? (in the context of Skinners learning theory whose terminologuy that terminology is from)

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I'm sure readers will find your views and concern very charming. Quite how behavioural problems and poor health, help a dog be adopted, when it is clearly an expensive "project" requiring great commitment is not apparent to me.


ANOTHER nice try to put words into my mouth. I NEVER said that the reasons that a dog winds up in a shelter help to get it adopted out. I said simply that those are the reasons that dogs wind up in shelters. And it's not just my opinion. It comes from the American Animal Hospital Association.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I'll highlight this post as an example of Lou's misdirection technique, firing so many bullets noone can be bothered to read the thread.


Based on the number of views, 918, as of this writing, I'd say that AGAIN you are proven wrong. It's getting LOTS of reading.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The context we were discussing was clearly not a play situation. The dog was not playing, but being petted.


Yes, I know but you made another of your blanket statements that, on its face, was wrong. You wrote the general statement, _"Everyone understands a dog growling and reward it by backing off in general, unless they are dangerously misguided."_ I merely pointed out that every time a dog growls it is NOT a warning AGAIN correcting misinformation that you were dispersing.



RobD-BCactive said:


> There was no audible warning


As I've already pointed out this dog is specifically trained NOT to back off or to growl in such situations.



RobD-BCactive said:


> the policeman was indeed lounging and relaxed leaning back as anyone can see.


 He's crouched down. If he was _"leaning back"_ as you claim, he'd have fallen over. ROFL.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore the reporter was taken totally by surprise.


That part is quite obvious.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> I'd bet that Mr. Deeds uses punishment when it's appropriate in his training.


L4l now directs us to a post wherein she quotes Mr. Deeds. There he says this,


> I'm the only trainer on my task force that trains this way. The rest are all into yank, crank, & shock.


Hmmm. What does it tell you if he's _"the only one on [his] task force that trains this way?"_ It could be that it's indicative that his methods are not suitable for their rest of the dogs. That the methods he espouses are too hard to implement. That they take too much time. That they don't give results that are as good. It could be some combination of these things. Of course there is the possibility that his dog is far better than the rest of the dogs and that they are jealous (highly doubtful) but we can't know from anything we've been presented. They've all passed the certification for this kind of work.

I'm reminded of a situation that existed several years back in a SAR group in Colorado. There everyone used the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and one handler was having problems with her dog not recalling and ranging too far out. She'd been trying these methods for months to no effect. She had the assistance of several "experts" who were responsible for the team's training. But their efforts had no effect on her dog. She wrote to me privately (off the SAR dog list that we were both on) and asked about using the Ecollar for these issues. I assured her that it would fix the problem and not interfere with the rest of the dog's work. She started using the Ecollar away from her team's training as they were convinced that it would "ruin him," much the same nonsense that a few here keep repeating. They knew as little about Ecollars as some of the so−called "experts" here.

Six to eight weeks after she started using the Ecollar she left it on her dog when she went to training with the team. They warned her again that she was going to "ruin her dog." Somehow they'd forgotten that since she'd started using the Ecollar away from her training, the dog had completely turned around and they'd been praising her for the progress her dog had been making. They didn't know that she'd been using the Ecollar. They thought that she'd still been using their methods.

About a year later EVERYONE on that SAR team was using Ecollars with one exception. Only one dog on that team did not have a good recall. Can you guess which dog it was?

Mr. Deeds writes,


> I am a Canine Search Specialist with TX-TF1, RE-certifying my 2nd Urban search & rescue dog. This dog was trained with *all positive-methods. *She was a totally green pound-pup when I got her. I held her back for about 4-months to let her mature. We certified with about 8 months of work. I'm currently working on getting a Schutzhund dog up & running, with *all positive methods. * [Emphasis Added]


Since we know that it's impossible to train a dog without using punishment and even l4l has said that there's no such thing as any methods that is "all positive" either Mr. Deeds is playing fast and loose with the language, he's deliberately trying to mislead, he simply does not know what he's talking about, or he's trying to sell us something.

Mr. Deeds writes,


> I've trained both my dogs this way. I was a crossover-trainer on my first USAR dog & I started with traditional methods. Halfway through, I changed to positive techniques and still [certified] that first dog in less than a year. Like I said... the current dog I was able to train through our CE in 8-months. The next one, I'll [certify] in 4 or 5 months. If you have the right dog for the job, you don't need to use force!


Hmm. In light of the fact that l4l quotes me as saying that I'd bet that Mr. Deeds uses punishment ... I find it odd that there's nothing from him denying this. I wonder why she chose to quote him to support her against my argument?

And in the article that she cited that started another discussion, l4l quotes a trainer, Sarah Kalnajs, who writes this about people who call themselves _"positive trainers"_ as does Mr. Deeds. _"The distinction is that their preference in training is whenever possible to use Positive Reinforcement & Negative *Punishment * &* when necessary use the tools of Positive Punishment"*_ 

Ms. Kalnajs continues, _"* While they may sometimes opt to use Positive Punishment as a tool ..."*_ 

And so, I'd double my bet that Mr. Deeds uses punishment when it's appropriate in his training.

It's also interesting that l4l fails to realize that there's a vast difference between the training of a police *detector *dog and the training of a police *patrol * dog. One finds substances, the other is trained to bite humans in addition to his other duties. Throughout this thread she's crossed the training of these dogs and tried to interchange them. Of course there are "dual purpose" dogs, that do both but the training for the two purposes is still completely different.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier Arlow wrote,


> But you argue elsewhere that "all positive methods" is a myth. By your logic Bob Deeds is engaging in "deliberate reconstruction of the facts, or complete inability to comprehend."





leashedForLife said:


> i'm not responsible for Mr Deeds use of terms


What an ABSURD position. *At one point you quote him to oppose my statement that he uses punishment.  But when called on this nonsense, you tell us that YOU'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE for his use of the terms of the discussion.  What hypocrisy! *It's obvious that * when it's convenient * YOU DO SUPPORT this use of these terms.



leashedForLife said:


> - i have explained my own repeatedly, & find it is generally either ignored or attacked by the recipient.


RARELY is it _"ignored."_ Quite often IT IS attacked. That's because you're wrong so often or your position is patently bizarre (as now) and it's important to point that out. Not too long ago you wrote that something was positive punishment when, in fact it was negative punishment. You were corrected (not attacked BTW) and YOU ignored the correction.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> In this case I really don't think the exact wording matters much - the point remains the same.


I disagree. I think that _"the exact wording"_ matters quite a bit. Mr. Deeds like thousands of people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" uses the language he does as a marketing tool, NOT to communicate clearly. I think that's quite telling.



Colette said:


> * Most dog training of this nature *is carried out using "yank and stomp" methods that rely heavily on painful physical corrections, including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking, etc. [Emphasis Added]


No you're quite wrong. The type of work that Mr. Deeds is talking about, detection dog training, has LITTLE of this in it. Like a few others, you're taking a few videos and trying to broad brush it to the entire industry.



Colette said:


> Mr Deeds methods train without these things, using methods based on rewards / positive reinforcement.


ALL dog training is based on _"rewards / positive reinforcement."_ But those of us who are being honest also admit that there are also punishments used. Some won't admit this. Mr. Deeds is in that boat.



Colette said:


> On a technical note, yes he will use some form of "punishment" but the methods do not including training through fear of physical pain, or risk serious injury, etc.


Neither does my use of an Ecollar but it hasn't stopped some from constantly alleging that it does.



Colette said:


> I don't think the dogs care what constitutes "punishment" according to Skinner et al


I'll disagree. They certainly DO care about this. If they did not, training a dog would be impossible.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

rona said:


> This is slightly more up to date.
> http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_12.pdf


Wondering, Colette and l4l since you claim that these dogs are trained with _"... 'yank and stomp' methods that rely heavily on painful physical corrections, including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking, etc."_ can you point out in this official document regarding the training of MWD's (Military Working Dogs), where instructions for this are given? I was unable to find any sort of reference, even veiled, to it.

Hmmm, could it be the fact, that rather than the statements from you folks (l4l and Colette specifically [and anyone who agrees with their nonsense generally]) that this sort of thing is "pervasive" that IN REALITY it's _rare? _ Just askin'.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Hmmm, could it be the fact, that rather than the statements from you folks (l4l and Colette specifically [and anyone who agrees with their nonsense generally]) that this sort of thing is "pervasive" that IN REALITY it's _rare? _ Just askin'.


If it was not pervasive, why would they show it in TV Documentaries on training programming, with new handlers under training using leash jerks, exactly as described? (Mentioned before Wonder Dogs - Border Patrol meant to be a "progressive" rewards based training)

Blanket denial just is not credible.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

as a window into changes in training-paradigms: 
K-9 History: DoD MWD Training School 


> _Prior to the conflict in Vietnam, *nearly all dogs used by the U.S. armed forces were trained as sentry (attack) dogs*. _


this is very simplistic & not accurate - in WW-1, dogs served as message-couriers, 1st-Aid dogs 
[carrying a pack with bandages, water, etc, to wounded soldiers], draft animals, perimeter alert 
[bark only, not attack], & more - in WW-2, there was more emphasis on narrowing the dog's function, 
& they began to shove more dogs thru training faster, despite a 60% fail-rate, as they enjoyed 
a virtually unlimited pool of volunteer-candidates: Dogs For Defense were *civilian's dogs,* 
not owned by nor bred by nor purchased by the Armed Forces, but lent.

having divested themselves of all dogs after WW-1 & WW-2, the Armed Forces finally decided 
to begin to buy, breed & train their own dogs as a standing-unit. *that's when the excessive 
training for aggression began - many Vietnam-handlers were bitten repeatedly by their own dogs, 
& transferring the dog to another person was sometimes impossible - the dogs were so untrusting, 
they would not eat food provided by a stranger... so some whose handlers died or finished a tour 
of duty, had to be euthanized as they could not re-attach to a new handler.*

returning to the quote... 


> _Their function was to detect and attack, on command, all people except the handler and others who helped care for them.
> 
> When a transfer of handlers was necessary, it took several weeks for a new handler to gain the sentry dog's trust. Clearly, a dog trained to be more tolerant was needed.
> Civilian police dog training provided the answer.
> ...


this does not include the later SuperDog /BioSensor training, which included early-stimulation 
of neonates to produce dogs who were highly resilient & could rebound readily from stress - 
which began as research in the late-60s [approx 1968] & became dogs on the base in the early-70s 
[approx 1972].

litters currently bred still go thru the early-neuro-stimulation program while very young pups.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> I'll disagree. They certainly DO care about this. If they did not, training a dog would be impossible.


And once again, deliberately misrepresenting my words. I don't doubt you know full well what I meant - you simply chose as usual to ignore that and instead twist it to fit your theory that I talk nothing but nonsense. Fortunately I'm sure anyone with common sense and no grudge will appreciate the point I was making.



> ALL dog training is based on "rewards / positive reinforcement."


No, actually it isn't. Certianly some methods (perhaps, from what you say, your own included) are reward based, and different methods will use different degrees and types of punishment (i.e. physical versus non-physical, direct or remote, positive or negative etc).
However, there are plenty of methods that are based primarily on P+ / R- (inc "traditional" training with a choke chain - every behaviour is taught by causing the dog discomfort / pain until the correct behaviour is achieved.) Again, some such training methods do use rewards as well, of varying types and to varying degrees.
As the saying goes "there's more than one way to skin a cat". To claim anything like this about "ALL" training is misleading and inaccurate.



> Mr. Deeds like thousands of people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" uses the language he does as a marketing tool, NOT to communicate clearly.


I disagree. I think the majority of trainers using the terms in this way do so in order to be understood by a lay person. Relatively few people know much about Skinner, the 4 quadrants, extinction, etc especially in detail. Using terminology accessible to a lay person makes it easier to get the point across, to be understood. Those who do have a more in depth understanding of behaviour theory will realise this.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this is terrific stuff, if U want to comprehend the ideas & *applications* - 
which go from teaching autistic children to solving destructive behavior in captive elephants - 
Instructors Manual with Test Items

that's why it's called _applied_ - it is meant to be used in the real-world. :thumbup:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> If it was not pervasive, why would they show it in TV Documentaries on training programming, with new handlers under training using leash jerks, exactly as described?


This is what has been described as PERVASIVE ... _" 'yank and stomp' methods that rely heavily on *painful physical corrections, * including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, *hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking, * etc."_ Please refer us to a _"TV Documentary on some training program"_ where these are shown, as you've just claimed.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Blanket denial just is not credible.


Look up the meaning of _"pervasive"_ and you'll have the answer. AS I'VE SAID, _"it's hardly pervasive. I'm an example that it's not and I'm hardly the only one."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l posts this link K-9 History: DoD MWD Training School

And then quotes from it. _"Prior to the conflict in Vietnam, nearly all dogs used by the U.S. armed forces were trained as sentry (attack) dogs."_



leashedForLife said:


> this is very simplistic & not accurate - in WW-1, dogs served as message-couriers, 1st-Aid dogs [carrying a pack with bandages, water, etc, to wounded soldiers], draft animals, perimeter alert [bark only, not attack], & more 


The truth is that both France and Germany used dogs for these purposes in WWI, but as the quotation accurately states _"Prior to the conflict in Vietnam, *nearly all dogs used by the U.S. armed forces were trained as sentry (attack) dogs."*_ 

The language used here can be misleading. The military has many names for dogs based on their duties and their training. Some of these terms were not used in the early use of MWD's. In recent history (since Vietnam), they have included FROM THIS SITE.


 Scout Dogs  These dogs walked point for patrols. They were trained to alert on enemy movement, booby traps, land mines, base camps, underground tunnel complexes, and underground caches of weapons, food and medical supplies. 
Tracker Dogs − Their primary role was to track the enemys scent or blood trails throughout South Vietnam, so that larger American forces could reengage. 
Sentry/Patrol Dogs − The dog and handler were very effective in defending aircraft, airfields, supply depots, ammunition dumps, defensive perimeters, and many other strategic military facilities. 
Mine/Tunnel Dogs − were trained to sniff out mines and booby traps ... and sniff out the location of tunnels. 
Water Patrol Dogs − These dogs alerted on ... enemy underwater divers breathing through reeds, snorkels and other underwater apparatus. 

FROM ONE OF MY LEAST FAVORITE SOURCES


1799: Napoleon assembled large numbers of fighting dogs in front of his reserves.
1914: *[NOTE: The start of WWI] * The Belgian Army used carabiniers, strong-muscled Bouvier des Flandres to haul heavy machine guns to the front.
* 19141918: Dogs were used by international forces to deliver vital messages. * 
* 19411945: The Soviet Union used dogs strapped with explosives to destroy invading German tanks. * 
* 19431945: [NOTE: Here is the start of the US military involvement with K−9's]  The United States Marine Corps used dogs, donated by their American owners, in the Pacific theater to help take islands back from Japanese occupying forces. During this period the Doberman Pinscher became the official dog of the U.S.M.C.; however, all breeds of dogs were eligible to train to be "war dogs of the Pacific". Of the 549 dogs that returned from the war, only 4 could not be detrained and returned to civilian life. Many of the dogs went home with their handlers from the war. * 
* 19661973: Approximately 5,000 US war dogs served in the Vietnam War (the US Army did not retain records prior to 1968); about 10,000 US servicemen served as dog-handlers during the war, and the K9 units are estimated to have saved over 10,000 human lives. 232 military working dogs and 295 US servicemen working as dog handlers were killed in action during the war. It is estimated that about 200 Vietnam War dogs survived the war to be assigned at other US bases outside the US. The remaining canines were euthanized or left behind. * 
19791988: The Soviet Union again used dogs, this time in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
2011: United States Navy SEALs used a Belgian Malinois war dog named Cairo in Operation Neptune Spear, in which Osama bin Laden was killed. 

As can be seen, the US didn't make much use of dogs before WWII. And then *MOST * of them were biting dogs (commonly known as attack dogs). Yes, SOME were used by the US for the purposes that l4l states but their number were relatively small. AGAIN she's got her facts wrong.



leashedForLife said:


> having divested themselves of all dogs after WW-1 & WW-2, the Armed Forces finally decided to begin to buy, breed & train their own dogs as a standing-unit. *that's when the excessive training for aggression began  *


*

Interesting that l4l thinks that the number of dogs trained for aggression was "excessive." Talk to anyone who was there and they'll tell you that they wished that there were FAR more of them.



leashedForLife said:



- many Vietnam-handlers were bitten repeatedly by their own dogs,

Click to expand...

One is too many. But they were using very crude methods and trying to get as many dogs "through the pipe" as possible in a wartime atmosphere. While this still happens today, it's never going to stop completely due to the nature of the dogs that are used, I4n my 32+ years of training dogs for bitework for LE I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training.



leashedForLife said:



& transferring the dog to another person was sometimes impossible  the dogs were so untrusting, they would not eat food provided by a stranger... so some whose handlers died or finished a tour of duty, had to be euthanized as they could not re-attach to a new handler.

Click to expand...

This had little to do with a dog not transferring to a new handler. Rather it was because doing so took time. Poison proofing was sometimes done as part of their routine training and so IT SHOULD BE EXPECTED that these dogs would not take food from strangers. And they were purposefully taught to be mistrustful of strangers. These are not dogs that mixed with the general population or even with the general population of other soldiers. This has NOTHING to do with fallout from harsh training/handling methods as is l4l's theory, and everything to do with purposefully training the dogs to be this way.



leashedForLife said:



returning to the quote...

Click to expand...





Their function was to detect and attack, on command, all people except the handler and others who helped care for them. When a transfer of handlers was necessary, it took several weeks for a new handler to gain the sentry dog's trust. Clearly, a dog trained to be more tolerant was needed.

Click to expand...

L4l now tries AGAIN to mislead you folks. As can be seen from the Vietnam war dogs site, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER of the dogs used there were trained in this fashion. And it wasn't a matter of a "more tolerant" dog it was a matter of different mission.



leashedForLife said:



Civilian police dog training provided the answer. In 1966, Lt. Colonel John Cady, a veterinarian, assigned to HQ-USAF Security Police, initiated the action that resulted in changing training methods, so that dogs could be used for many other purposes. [he suggested] to... the Chief of Security Police at Andrews AFB [during] a tour of the Squadron [that they] send four Air Force sentry dogs through the Metropolitan Police Dog School for patrol dog training.

Click to expand...

NOTE: This is the training that l4l, Colette and perhaps a few others now claim uses "yank and stomp" methods that rely heavily on painful physical corrections, including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking, etc."




this does not include the later SuperDog /BioSensor training, which included early-stimulation of neonates to produce dogs who were highly resilient & could rebound readily from stress - which began as research in the late-60s [approx 1968] & became dogs on the base in the early-70s [approx 1972]. litters currently bred still go thru the early-neuro-stimulation program while very young pups.

Click to expand...

Many propose that the biosensor dog came about because we found that in both World Wars the dogs from Europe outperformed the US dogs. They failed to realize the simple and obvious fact that in Europe working dogs is a wide spread sport, almost to the level that baseball (in the form of Little League and Pop Warner) is in the US. Nearly every small town in Germany, France and Belgium have several dog training clubs that compete in the biting sports such as SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV, etc. Those dogs had been bred for decades for their working abilities. OTOH, most of the dogs used in WWI and WWII by the US forces were donated pets that HAD NOT been bred for their working abilities.

But the military is not doing breeding programs as much as they did at one time, if they're still involved with one at all. They've learned that it's less expensive both from a directly money outlay standpoint AND from the standpoint of having to wash out dogs after weeks of training to purchase dogs that have already had a start in training. Mostly they're imports from Europe, similar to the way that most US police departments have been doing it for decades.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> And once again, deliberately misrepresenting my words.


Anytime you think I've done this, you are completely free to set the record straight. Since you've not done so we are completely free (and it's reasonable) to believe that I did not _"misrepresent"_ your words.



Colette said:


> I don't doubt you know full well what I meant 


I responded to what I thought you were saying. As I just said, if I got it wrong you can say so. Since you've not done that, I'll stand by my comments.

Earlier I wrote,


> ALL dog training is based on "rewards / positive reinforcement."





Colette said:


> No, actually it isn't.


You're wrong; it is.



Colette said:


> Certianly some methods (perhaps, from what you say, your own included) are reward based, and different methods will use different degrees and types of punishment (i.e. physical versus non-physical, direct or remote, positive or negative etc).
> However, there are plenty of methods that are based primarily on P+ / R- (inc "traditional" training with a choke chain - every behaviour is taught by causing the dog discomfort / pain until the correct behaviour is achieved.) Again, some such training methods do use rewards as well, of varying types and to varying degrees.


You're still wrong. Every trainer that I know that uses these methods uses positive reinforcement in the form of play, praise, treats, etc. THAT makes those methods "based on 'rewards / positive reinforcement.' " YOU WANT people to believe that all they do is to _"cause the dog discomfort / pain"_ but it's simply not true. Since you disagree I suggest that you give us the names and contact information for a couple of people you claim train like this and I'll contact them to see if they use rewards / +R or if they train as you claim.

Earlier I wrote,


> Mr. Deeds like thousands of people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" uses the language he does as a marketing tool, NOT to communicate clearly.





Colette said:


> I disagree. I think the majority of trainers using the terms in this way do so in order to be understood by a lay person.


NONSENSE. The average pet owner (whatever that means) is often badly confused when confronted by these terms. This is nothing but a deliberate attempt to hide what he really does. FAR better to use the language that has been created to deal with these things than made up slang. We've seen the confusion that it creates even among those here who consider themselves "experts." L4l (Terry Pride) and RobD have BOTH been caught making such an errors). If these salespeople would stick to the correct scientific language this confusion would NEVER have been created. Karen Pryor even admits to doing this.



Colette said:


> Relatively few people know much about Skinner, the 4 quadrants, extinction, etc especially in detail.


And it's far better for these people who are selling what they call "positive training" if the average pet owner (whatever that means) stay ignorant of what they really do.



Colette said:


> Using terminology accessible to a lay person makes it easier to get the point across, to be understood.


ANYONE who is reading this can Google the terms and become conversant with the language. Pretending that it's _"not accessible"_ is false and deliberately misleading.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

let's try that again - 


> - LeashedForLife -
> 
> having divested themselves of all dogs after WW-1 & WW-2, the Armed Forces finally decided to begin to buy,
> breed & train their own dogs as a standing-unit. _that's when the excessive *training for aggression* began..._


 diagramming that sentence... ? 
- _"excessive training"_ - training is the subject of the clause; excessive is the adjective 
- _"for *aggression*"_ - for aggression is the modifier of the clause


Lou Castle said:


> Interesting that l4l thinks that the *number of dogs* trained for aggression was _"excessive."_
> Talk to anyone who was there and they'll tell you that they wished that there were FAR more of them.


see above - 
i did not refer to NUMBERS of dogs, but the INTENSITY of aggro which resulted from the focus 
of training, on developing aggro in the dogs.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Since LOU_CASTLE has systematically removed any pleasure or interest i have in this discussion, 
[with occasional help from *arlow* & *sleepyBones*], have a nice life, y'all - See ya. :001_smile:

and once again - i would urge anyone who wants to see modern, humane training to be used 
for operational-k9s, please consider buying this book & donating a copy to the local police, 
or to any military, paramilitary or security k9-training facility. :thumbup:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> see above - i did not refer to NUMBERS of dogs, but the INTENSITY of aggro which resulted from the focus of training, on developing aggro in the dogs.


I'll consider myself corrected. You were not referring to the numbers of dogs trained for aggression. You were referring to _"the INTENSITY of aggro."_

Hmmm, methinks this is just as bad IF NOT WORSE than my misinterpretation of your earlier statement. As someone whose life has depended on "the INTENSITY of aggression" from a K−9 partner I can tell you that the rule is _ THE MORE INTENSE THE AGGRESSION − THE BETTER._ When dogs that are trained to bite don't do it well, people who count on them can die. We're dealing with people who want to kill us here. We're not playing touch football with the kids.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Since LOU_CASTLE has systematically removed any pleasure or interest i have in this discussion, [with occasional help from *arlow* & *sleepyBones*], have a nice life, y'all - See ya.


I can understand how having someone repeatedly point out your many errors must feel. As a cure for this I suggest that you not post material that is off−topic, gibberish, or wrong. Dispensing MISinformation on the Net is not helpful to the rest of the folk, many of whom don't know any better and will swallow any twaddle that you post.

Had you merely promoted this book WITHOUT the repeated attacks on methods used by others, you'd not have attracted this attention. But you seem to be incapable of writing ANYTHING without such attacks. Some may have noticed that when we give advice we don't tear down the methods of others. We simply make our suggestions and bow out, only returning if the usual attacks are presented.

But since you insist on using this style of writing, you can expect similar results anytime you make these sorts of attacks again. You'll find that if you avoid them you don't get our attention and can peddle your wares with little response from us. Feel free to espouse your methods. When you do, it's not necessary to tear down the methods (or try to do so) used by others.



leashedForLife said:


> and once again - i would urge anyone who wants to see modern, humane training to be used for operational-k9s, please consider buying this book & donating a copy to the local police, or to any military, paramilitary or security k9-training facility.


And once again, I must say that giving this book to anyone in the industry is a waste of time. Those who want to explore the so−called "kinder gentler methods" already have. Many of us have been using _"modern, humane training [methods] for operational K−9's"_ for decades. Those who aren't interested will just throw the book into the trash.

But if following l4l's advice to donate a copy of this book makes someone feel good, then, by all means do so. OTOH, I'll be thrilled if someone wants to send a copy to me! After all, that's what it's all about for some, feeling good.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Dispensing MISinformation on the Net is not helpful to the rest of the folk


That looks like rank hypocrisy considering you refused to examine mistakes and errors made by other shock collar advocates. You told us you had not come here to do that, but to defend shock collars.

You have done nothing to correct their many repeated wilfull errors and appalling disregard for scientific knowledge, researchers or even admitting that postive training techniques are effective, for very many successful dog trainers & pet owners.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Lou Castle - This is what has been described as PERVASIVE ... " 'yank and stomp' methods that *rely heavily on painful physical corrections, including the use of choke, shock or prong collars, hanging, helicoptering, hitting and kicking*, etc." Please refer us to a "TV Documentary on some training program" where these are shown, as you've just claimed.


There has been only one series of programms in recent years UK on police dogs, it was called 'Send in the dogs'. It was a series of (I think) 4 or 5 programms over a pertod of 4 weeks, maybe 5. It has been broadcast on 2 years that I know of, Aug 2008 & Feb 2010, someone make that more accurate if its not acurate.

I don't watch these dog programs normaly but in late Aug (possibly first week of Sept) 08 I saw one of them. It was hard to beleive the training levels were so ineffective, low standard & outright all round dangerous.

In that programm a Yorks PD unit was one feature, the film crew were out on night patrol with a dog unit, a suspect was at large & one PD handler, name of PC Loreless, sent his dog offlead on waste ground on a real life search & detain command.

The dog ran off and then refused refused several recalls, PC Loreless was speaking to the film crew about his dogs refusal to recall, he said it sometimes happens, he's probably gone after an animal and 'they' cannot be recalled if that happens, the cop was quite matter of fact about it as if it was perfectly normal thing for a PD to sometimes do. So, you have a working detention GSD unable to carry out it's working role, out of control & making the cop unable to go to another emergency if required because he had to wait for his dog to come back of its own accord.

The only other partial 'Send in the dogs' programm I saw was Feb 2010, I think somewhere around 27th Feb 2010.

In that one there was female handler with a black search spaniel, there was some outdoor footage taken near parked cars. It was as unbeleivable as the PC Loreless incident, as soon as the dog found its search object the ball reinforcer was thrown to the dog, it ran under a parked car and again refused recall or to come away from under the car when the handler was trying to recall it from only a metre or so away, >again< she statred telling the film crew that as soon as he got his reinforcer ball (reward) after the find he would get away from her & stay out of reach untill he chose otherwise.

I think it was in 2009 that one of the news programms gave some part of the figs for the number of dogs that had succesfully passed the PD training test after 2 years training. Out of 200 stated only 1 dog had passed as fit for deployment, it did not state what actually happens to failed dogs but I doubt they would sell any protection trained dogs so thats probaly an unknown number of those dogs PTS.

The deployment policy of any PD units, if not all, is that their Malinois are sent to a detention situation muzzled, to 'butt' the suspect as they say. Effectively you have 38kg dead weight, increased by the running and launch speed, of a muzzled dog hitting a dense object & all that pressure and force is taken in the vertebrate. The reason they have to be muzled is because is because the police training methods cannot train a reliable release.

Footage:

CCTV - UK trained PD deployed to apprehend suspect - live footage
YouTube - ‪Worst police dog in the world‬‏

Two videos of civilian training dog, with an e-collar as one of the training aids, covering the same excercises as the 2 TV programms described, including night recall from suspect chase & a ball reinforcer (reward) drop & leave exercise.

YouTube - ‪"Leave" Training Reinforcement Exercise & Use In A Real Life Emergency, E-Collar Trained Dog.‬‏

YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained Dog. Multiple Game Chase Recalls, Emergency Recall, Aggressive Incident Recall etc‬‏

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> or even admitting that postive training techniques are effective, for very many successful dog trainers & pet owners.


You mean like this one? You should be campaigning to get people like this refunds, not gabbeling yet more internet chat room nonsense outside your experience & beyond your knowledge.

UK Dog Training Scams - EDUCATIONAL E-COLLAR DOG

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> The dog ran off and then refused refused several recalls, PC Loreless was speaking to the film crew about his dogs refusal to recall, he said it sometimes happens, he's probably gone after an animal and 'they' cannot be recalled if that happens


My dog can, if they cannot it suggests the police dog training programme needs improving; because it's very definitely possible to break predatory chase sequence in a purely rewards trained dog.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hmmmm... 


Lou Castle said:


> We simply make our suggestions and bow out...


& again - it takes *37* posts out of *100 replies* to make those suggestions & 'bow out'?

U have the longest curtain-calls of any stage actor in history.
:blink:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That looks like rank hypocrisy considering you refused to examine mistakes and errors made by other shock collar advocates. You told us you had not come here to do that, but to defend shock collars.


Read again what I wrote RobD and please stop trying to twist my words to suit your own agenda. I wrote, _"*Dispensing *MISinformation on the Net is not helpful to the rest of the folk."_

L4l has *DISPENSED MUCH MISinformation * and I don't see you correcting her errors of fact. Looks like _"rank hypocrisy"_ to me, on your part. Pot−kettle−black.

AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, it's not my job to correct EVERYONE'S misinformation. I'll do it when and if I feel like it. Since l4l attacks my methods and tools AND ME on both a personal and professional level with nearly every post, that's where I'll choose to spend my time.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You have done nothing to correct their many repeated wilfull errors and appalling disregard for scientific knowledge, researchers or even admitting that postive training techniques are effective, for very many successful dog trainers & pet owners.


We've already discussed this to death. I've told you that I'm not aware of the things you claim that they've said and I've asked you to point out specifically the _"mistakes and errors made by other shock collar advocates."_ You've not done so. It's not my job to go hunting for them. If you're not willing to do your part I see no reason to assist you.

I have no problem saying that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are effective for many dog trainers and pet owners. It's the ones who are NOT achieving reliability that I'm talking to. I've said many times that if people are happy with their methods and they are, in fact, giving good results, that I'm happy as well. But many people fool themselves and only THINK that their methods are giving good results. They've just never tested them in the real world. When that test comes, if the method fails, it could cost their dog its life.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

SleepyBones wrote,


> The dog ran off and then refused refused several recalls, PC Loreless was speaking to the film crew about his dogs refusal to recall, he said it sometimes happens, he's probably gone after an animal and 'they' cannot be recalled if that happens





RobD-BCactive said:


> My dog can, if they cannot it suggests the police dog training programme needs improving; because it's very definitely possible to break predatory chase sequence in a purely rewards trained dog.


All well and good RobD. I'll accept that YOU have trained YOUR DOG to call off an animal chase. But this officer, with all the expertise available to him, can not. Telling us that YOUR dog can be stopped from this MEANS NOTHING to this officer or to anyone on this forum with a similar issue! Based on results I'd say that this officere has a dog for whom, AS I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY, the so−called "kinder gentler methods" do not work for this issue.

I've worked on this issue with dogs for whom those methods have failed over 200 times and have succeeded in stopping the behavior every time. The method uses the Ecollar at the level of stim that the dog first feels, thereby inflicting only minor discomfort. It Can Be Read Here.

I also find it interesting that you don't address the second incident that SleepyBones describes, the dog that would not recall with its toy from under the car. Don't have a fix for that?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l quotes me as saying this,


> We simply make our suggestions and bow out...


CONVENIENTLY she omits my full statement AGAIN quoting me out of context to try and change the meaning of what I wrote.

Here's my full statement.


> Had you merely promoted this book WITHOUT the repeated attacks on methods used by others, you'd not have attracted this attention. But you seem to be incapable of writing ANYTHING without such attacks. Some may have noticed that when we give advice we don't tear down the methods of others. We simply make our suggestions and bow out, only returning if the usual attacks are presented.


There was no advice given in this thread (beyond the one you made, to purchase this book) rather it was YET ANOTHER of your numerous attacks on the Ecollar and other tools/methods that you don't like. Along the way you made the absurd statement that bad bites from police dogs result from harsh handling/training. You've been asked repeatedly to supply support for that statement but have completely failed to do so. None of your cohorts have either. So this discussion does not fall under the heading of "me, giving a dog owner advice."



leashedForLife said:


> hmmmm... & again - it takes 37 posts out of 100 replies
> 
> [SARCASM]I'm deeply sorry that I have too much spare time on my hands. Deepest, deepest apologies and I mean that sincerely. [/SARCASM] I think that if someone spouts nonsense at the rate that some of you folks do, or posts misinformation as much as YOU do that it should be corrected. Don't you think that folks should hear both side of a discussion? Or would you prefer that ONLY YOU have a voice here? Do you realize that I've asked you over two dozen questions in this discussion that you've not answered? Oops, here are a few more that you won't respond to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> You do realise that LC will now dissect both your last posts into at least 1/2 a dozen posts


Hardly true CarolineH. RobD wrote one post and I've responded with one. l4l wrote one post and I've responded with one. This statement from you is simply a gross exaggeration at best and an outright lie at worst.



CarolineH said:


> It would make such a refreshing change to see him and his followers actually contribute something helpful onto this forum


I happen to think that putting the lie to misinformation and ignorance spouted by others IS _"contribut[ing] and helpful"_ to the forum. Based on this statement it appears that you'd prefer that lies, myths, and misconceptions be spread even further!



CarolineH said:


> rather than troll the discussion threads


The usual rudeness that we've come to expect from you folks. lol



CarolineH said:


> and promote their antiquated, negative methods of 'training'.


Actually modern methods using modern Ecollars on pets is the "most modern" thing out there. The methods that YOU prefer are the antiquated ones by comparison.



CarolineH said:


> It is getting so boring now that I bet a lot have stopped reading the Training and Behaviour board!


One of my favorite sayings is that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But they are not entitled to their own facts." The FACTS are that this thread ALONE (not even counting the other threads on the Training and Behavior Board has been viewed (at the time of this writing) *1,162 times. * MORE VIEWS THAN 90+% OF OTHER RECENT TOPICS IN THE FORUM (except for the stickys). Ecollar threads CONSISTENTLY get VERY high readership. AGAIN CarolineH, you're proven wrong.



CarolineH said:


> Welll done PF for allowing this to continue! I am impressed - NOT!


Well done indeed PF! I AM impressed.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

*RIGHT I AM POSTING ON HERE YET AGAIN. :nono:

I AM NOT GOING TO SINGLE ANY ONE PERSON OUT

STOP THE PERSONAL BITS PLEASE

THERE IS NO REASON TO CALL ANYONE ANYTHING

DISCUSS - PUT YOUR POINT ACROSS WITHOUT CALLING ANYONE ELSE STUPID, NOT KNOWLEDGABLE ETC. I'M SURE PEOPLE WITH YOUR LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE, CAN DISCUSS ANY SUBJECT WITHOUT THE NEED TO ABUSE OR BELITTLE ANOTHER.*


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> read it & weep.
> BBC News | AFRICA | SA police dogs 'should be killed'
> 
> The dog whisperer - swissinfo


I did read it, and followed up the trainer, and then I wept....because my sides were hurting so much. Firstly, lets see when this article was dated:

*Wednesday, 22 November, 2000, 14:15 GMT*

11 years ago. That'll be relevant won't it?



> Up to 90% of South Africa's police dogs that go out on patrol should be destroyed, a renowned international police dog trainer said on Wednesday.


Wow, not rehabilitateddestroyed! Some dog lover with experience to handle "problem dogs". Anyway, 11 years on, considering a GSD is good for on average 10 years, by now 90% of those dogs have passed on, so problem solved eh?

But what of this trainer that Terry would like to make an example of? What can we learn about him and why should we defer to his methods? Lets consider the second link:

*Jan 26, 2001 - 08:30*

...and take this "experts" views into account.



> It would be tempting to dismiss as mad a man who had lived in the wild with a pack of wolves and claimed to be able to listen to what dogs tell him about their owners. But Hans Schlegel is one of the most respected dog trainers in the world.


Ok, so far so good, world renowned, world respected, he's bound to know his stuff.....



> Police forces around the world are using the skills of Schlegel, who says he has a unique way of training the animals based on his ability to communicate with them.


Communication with the subject is a good thing, and how exactly is this achieved?



> He says he understands the animals and listens to what they tell him, especially what they say about their owners.


Ah! That doesn't sound in the least bit crackpot :blink: However, Im liking thislet me just light up a jostick and keep reading.



> I can communicate with the animal without words, just movement and motion. I can tell a problem animal, like an aggressive dog. Actually, he tells me what the problem is with the human being, Schlegel said.


Yeah, I had the same experience after half a bottle of Absinth once......



> He said he was taught to work with animal energy by a Native American in the United States, and believes everybody is capable of learning the skill.


Wha. my dogs being trained by someone who thinks hes Jim Morrison, anyway, *bubble bubble* *cough cough* carry on



> People typically use rewards like sausages or cookies to instil obedience, but the Schlegel method is different. He says praise, affection and fun activities are much more effective.


Oh????



> The wolves taught me to train dogs using motion or movement. At the end of any exercise, there needs to be praise for good work, like good boy. And this is a communication from my heart to the animal. Thats much higher than a sausage for the dog Schlegel said.
> 
> The problem with tangible rewards as a means of training dogs, Schlegel says, is that as soon as the sausage is withdrawn, the animal stops listening.


Noooooo, for real?



> Police dogs were also trained to hunt down criminals and attack them. Under the Schlegel method, they are taught, first through games, to trace criminals, and then wait for the police to arrive and deal with them.


or get shot just throwing it out there, y'know, desperate criminal, chased down by a dog who just sits there, has chance to find a weapon, or draw a gun and still wants to escape.... I'm sure every policeman would prefer to arrive finding someone on the floor with a dog chewing on an arm and a gun/stick with nail through it 8 foot away.....



> He runs training programmes for police forces in the United States, Korea and almost all European countries. He spends up to three months per year training in the US.


Since this article is 10 years old, by that rational this 'dog shaman' is arguably part of the cause of the alleged "poor police training" some in this post are complaining about....stands to reason.



> But most of his work, which includes training family pets, is carried out at his 60,000 square metres centre in Gansingen. The Wolfsprung Kennels are not just the temporary home to hundreds of dogs in training, but also to seven wolves and Schlegel's own 45 dogs.


KA-CHING.... oops, sorry, I mean, he's obviously very dedicated and a worthy example. I must dig up that post where someone (T) scoffed at some lady who communicated with dogs and read their aura.... either that or someone (T) didn't actually screen their references very well (again).

regards,

Austin


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> YouTube - ‪Baltimore Police Training K-9 Dog‬‏
> 
> the man in the background, encouraging & directing, is the department-head - who is operating
> the remote for the shock-collar.
> ...


I can't ever figure out if you knowingly exaggerate or just purposly mislead anyone who reads your posts.

I've watched this video over and over and can't even identify the collar. So, just in case the 22" widescreen monitor wasn't doing it justice I plugged the laptop into a 42" plasma TV and kept pausing it....still couldn't make out the collar.

One thing's for certain. It's not a prong collar!

Then I read this again. The dog only has one collar on, yes? So, how can the department head be operating the shock collar and the handler be suspending the dog by the prong collar?

Or, maybe the dog isn't wearing either....but you're just so fixated on finding every oportunity to mention shock collars and prong collars and condemn them as the most evil items in dog training that you imagine them. Even the APDT see a use for them, surely they of all people can't be wrong or you wouldn;t have signed up and pay them a subscription, eh? 

regards,

Austin


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier l4l posted this,


> YouTube - ‪Baltimore Police Training K-9 Dog‬‏
> the man in the background, encouraging & directing, is the department-head - who is operating
> the remote for the shock-collar.
> notice the handler: kneels on, punches, throttles, suspends by the prong-collar, etc.





LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> I can't ever figure out if you knowingly exaggerate or just purposly mislead anyone who reads your posts.
> 
> I've watched this video over and over and can't even identify the collar. So, just in case the 22" widescreen monitor wasn't doing it justice I plugged the laptop into a 42" plasma TV and kept pausing it....still couldn't make out the collar.


What a great observation Austin! When l4l posted this and I took a look to see what it was, I immediately realized that I'd seen it dozens of times before and simply clicked it off. Now I realize that no one ever before had said what l4l said, that the dog was being shocked by someone off camera, and that the dog was being _"suspend[ed] by the prong−collar"_ by the handler. I just assumed that she was accurately describing what was going on in the video! How naive I was!

Now that you've brought this to my attention I realize that AGAIN she's purposefully trying to mislead the readers and AGAIN she's taking cheap shots at the Ecollar. You're absolutely right. The dog is wearing NEITHER an Ecollar NOR a pinch collar. The leash is attached to a flat buckle collar that's about 2" wide.



LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Then I read this again. The dog only has one collar on, yes? So, how can the department head be operating the shock collar and the handler be suspending the dog by the prong collar?


It's simply impossible. L4l is imagining things.



LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Or, maybe the dog isn't wearing either....but you're just so fixated on finding every oportunity to mention shock collars and prong collars and condemn them as the most evil items in dog training that you imagine them. Even the APDT see a use for them, surely they of all people can't be wrong or you wouldn;t have signed up and pay them a subscription, eh?


How about it l4l? What's your explanation for posting this misinformation?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> One thing's for certain. It's not a prong collar!


thanks very much for bringing this to my attention - i corrected the original post to *shock collar.*

accuracy is very important - aAround the 2-minute mark, when the instructor is encouraging 'Wayne' to *"get on him, 
he thinks he's won..."* & the dog's stertorous inhalations are clearly audible, the dog yelps when the shock 
is delivered - the handler has him down, or he's standing but is not being struck, knelt on, punched, etc; 
*he's being zapped by the remote in the instructor's hand.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> thanks very much for bringing this to my attention - i corrected the original post to *shock collar.*


It's good that you've corrected this part of your error. Where did you get the idea that the dog was wearing a prong collar?



leashedForLife said:


> accuracy is very important


I agree so I'm waiting to hear how it was that you thought that the dog was wearing BOTH a prong collar AND an Ecollar?



leashedForLife said:


> - aAround the 2-minute mark, when the instructor is encouraging 'Wayne' to *"get on him,
> he thinks he's won..."* & the dog's stertorous inhalations are clearly audible, the dog yelps when the shock is delivered - the handler has him down, or he's standing but is not being struck, knelt on, punched, etc; *he's being zapped by the remote in the instructor's hand.*


I don't see _"the remote in the instructor's hand"_* at any time. * Please give us the time mark where you can see this.

I also don't see an Ecollar on the dog's neck at anytime during the video and I've watched it as close to second by second as the sites that have it allow. Please tell us at what time mark you see an Ecollar on the dog's neck and at what time mark you hear the dog yelp when the stim is delivered.

I have no doubt that if the dog had been wearing an Ecollar and it too was being used, it would have been mentioned when this video was first released, but it was not. YOU are the first person that I know of who claims that an Ecollar is in use. Im pretty sure that it's not. There are several scenes where the dog is lunging out against the leash, with his front legs off the ground and it's clear that there is ONLY ONE collar on the dog and that's NOT an Ecollar. NEVER is the "box" (which contains the electrical parts) visible.

As to his labored breathing, OF COURSE it's labored. He's been fighting for a couple of minutes with someone that outweighs him by a factor of about 3X.

You're just wrong AGAIN Terry. But I doubt that you'll admit it. There's no Ecollar in use in this incident.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i hear that often - i wish it were true, but in general there's a fervent belief that k9s NEED harsh handling 
& that 'corrections' also known as punishment, are absolutely imperative.

tell me what the dog in this video is being _*"corrected"*_ for? 
YouTube - ‪Detroit cop smacks dog with ??‬‏

what did this dog do, to earn being hit in the face - across the muzzle, in front of the eyes - 
with a metal object? The video is a clip from the evening news, the dog is seated on the sidewalk 
during a segment covering a crime. What crime did the *dog* commit?

it appears to be perhaps a pair of pliers, a wire-cutter... something bigger at the front than the handle. 
it does NOT appear to be something designed for hitting a mammal in the face without risk of injury - 
a trained-k9 is about a $30k investment, so he's damaging department-property with a hefty price-tag.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i hear that often - i wish it were true, but in general there's a fervent belief that k9s NEED harsh handling & that 'corrections' also known as punishment, are absolutely imperative.


Your statement that _"in general"_ this is a _"fervent belief"_ is again wrong. Some believe it but most don't. Sometimes, for some, dogs corrections are necessary. BTW, you use _"corrections, also known as punishment"_ too. Why would others trainers refrain from their use?



leashedForLife said:


> tell me what the dog in this video is being _*"corrected"*_ for?


Looks like an idiot bashing his dog for "daring to sniff at something he's holding." I encourage my dogs to show interest and to explore most things I hold in my hand. As long as they're not harmful, of course. Anyone who calls that an example of "police dog training" is either confused, lost or desperate. I'd call it a case of poor _"handling."_



leashedForLife said:


> what did this dog do, to earn being hit in the face  * across the muzzle, in front of the eyes * [Emphasis Added]


Are there any dogs whose eyes are _in front of their muzzles?" _ Ridiculous? Yes. But so is your position on this.



leashedForLife said:


> What crime did the *dog* commit?


Dogs are incapable of _"commit[ing]"_ crimes. They can't form the mens rea that's necessary.



leashedForLife said:


> a trained-k9 is about a $30k investment, so he's damaging department-property with a hefty price-tag.


What _"damage"_ was inflicted? I'm certainly not justifying what happened but let's not pretend that the dog needed medical attention and was injured so severely that he had to be retired, OK?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l the questions are building up. Wondering if you could answer these that you seem to have missed?

Referring to "the Lucy situation"​
How would this previous training give Lucy a _"sincere hatred & fear of all other dogs?"_
Why would anyone have a dog do a _"bark & hold exercise"_ on a dog? 
Do you even know what a "bark and hold" is? 
What department was this?

Referring to the "GSD in your sig line"

Did the donor inform the appropriate authorities about this abuse? 
How about this trainer's supervisor? Did she pursue charges and then testify against this trainer?

Referring to the dog biting the child at Dulles Airport

[H]ow do you know that the methods you describe were used on this dog at the airport? 
Or are you trying to generalize and hint that since one department has done this (if, in fact they did) that all departments do? 
What evidence to you have that links this dog (at the airport) to the story you told of Lucy? 
Do you have any idea how the CBP trains dogs at Front Royal? 
Are you alleging that the methods you previously described are used there? 
Bad bites (defined as anytime a PSD bites someone that is not the target) are most often a handler error issue. What evidence do you have that this was a result of the kind of training that you've described above? Or are you, as you often do, merely mentioning two events and claiming that one caused the other? 
[P]lease supply the evidence that links the training method you described with this incident. 
What evidence do you have that the dog at Dulles was trained with harsh methods? 
What do you know of the training methods used by the CBP?

Referring to you asking Bob Bailey if you could quote him and referring to the military handlers in your local area as _"brass bound hardheads [*]Do you think that talking about them in this fashion is going to make them want to change? Or is it more likely that they'll dig in their heels and make it even harder for them to accept your methods?

Referring to the post wherein you quoted "a current [CBP] handler who is nearing retirement ..."

[*]YOU claim that bad bites are due to harsh training and abusive methods while your expert says that it's due to, *"the lower thresholds of these [imported] dogs * " [W]hich one of you is correct?

Referring to your first citation of the Baltimore PD video.

[*]Another link but it does not support your argument that harsh handling/training leads to bad bites. Where are the news stories that support this?

Referring to your statement that the sort of thing seen in the Baltimore video is S.O.P.

[*]I'll disagree. Please show us these "SOP's."
[*]Please show us some quotations that show such a "procedure: by the book."

Regarding your statement that Steve White was hired to help this PD with their public image

[*]And how did Mr. White do in this endeavor? 
[*]Do you have some news stories that glowingly refers to their greatly improved "public image" after he was finished?

Referring to the video that shows a NC police officer kicking his dog coupled to your premise that rough handling/training leads to bad bites.

[*]Please show us a news story that has this dog inflicting such a bite.

Referring to the video wherein a handler turned his dog loose to exercise on a helipad

[*]ANOTHER horrible situation but NOT ONE WORD to support your theory that rough/harsh handling/training resulted in this bite. Please show us the evidence that this dog was subjected to such handling or training.

Referring to the video wherein the dog bit the reporter (coupled to your premise that rough handling/training leads to bad bites).

[*]Please show us evidence that this dog had been subjected to harsh handling/training.

Referring to this statement that you attributed to the CBP, "it seems to me that in exchange for the chance to brag that OUR DOGS ARE TOUGH!... and WE ARE THE TOUGHEST IN LAW-ENFORCEMENT... the Border-Patrol has shot themselves in the foot, by becoming more-dangerous, less-approachable, more-threatening & less appealing."

[*]Can you direct us to something official from the CBP saying that "Our dogs are tough? And we are the toughest in law enforcement."

Referring to this statement you made, " obviously, he's a total wuss - he trains with *rewards!*"

[*]When has anyone said that anyone who trains with rewards is "a total wuss?" I

You made this statement in the subject line of your posts, "no dog who was reward-trained has ever been certified as a police-patrol dog..." as if someone in this (or any) discussion had said it.

[*][You] placed quotation marks around it except that I didn't say it and I have no idea where it came from. Can you tell us l4l?

Referring to your statement "we can only hope that more people are in the right place to catch the perpetrators, with the will to face anger & even a backlash from the authorities. Un-masking official brutality is IMO, good - but that does not make it 'safe', only right... again IMO. It can be very dangerous to tell truth to power, or to tell or show truths *about* power - which as we know, can corrupt even good people."

[*]Can you supply some links to news stories that show the "anger and backlash from the authorities?" for revealing this sort of information?

Referring to your counting of my posts and reporting that out of 100 posts, 37 of them were mine

[*]Don't you think that folks should hear both side of a discussion? 
[*]Or would you prefer that ONLY YOU have a voice here?

Referring to you admission of your error that the dog in the Baltimore video was wearing a pinch collar

[*]Where did you get the idea that the dog was wearing a prong collar? 
[*]I don't see "the remote in the instructor's hand"* at any time. * Please give us the time mark where you can see this. 
[*]Please tell us at what time mark you see an Ecollar on the dog's neck and at what time mark you hear the dog yelp when the stim is delivered.

_
_

These are many (but not all) of the questions that I've asked of you in JUST THIS THREAD. Can you answer them please. I doubt that you will but I wanted the readers to be aware of the level of your avoidance and evasion. Im really hoping make me wrong in this sentiment._


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

bird said:


> *RIGHT I AM POSTING ON HERE YET AGAIN. :nono:
> 
> I AM NOT GOING TO SINGLE ANY ONE PERSON OUT
> 
> ...


I'm afraid to ask and probably it is wrong place but I will try...

Why some of users are posting post after post? It's hard to read it. It's confusing and gives me a headache.
Why they cannot use an EDIT function?


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Since Steve White's name has come up, here is a comment he made:



> As I see it, there are too many indiviual variables in dogs and poeple for any single system to work all the time.


Sounds like what Lou has been saying.....

(found in the comments: Positives of Negatives & Negatives of Positives » TheOtherEndoftheLeash)


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Andromeda said:


> I'm afraid to ask and probably it is wrong place but I will try...
> 
> Why some of users are posting post after post? It's hard to read it. It's confusing and gives me a headache.
> Why they cannot use an EDIT function?


It is a technique called 'flooding' whereby the member 'floods' topics with their own posts to ensure that they get their point across whilst dissecting each individual post in order to ridicule them and sound clever (aka nitpicking). Seen it all before - gets boring after a while though hence why I use the ignore feature.


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> It is a technique called 'flooding' whereby the member 'floods' topics with their own posts to ensure that they get their point across whilst dissecting each individual post in order to ridicule them and sound clever (aka nitpicking). Seen it all before - gets boring after a while though hence why I use the ignore feature.


Aaaa... I didn't know...
Now when I know I will fallow your advice and I will ignore it.


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> It is a technique called 'flooding' whereby the member 'floods' topics with their own posts to ensure that they get their point across whilst dissecting each individual post in order to ridicule them and sound clever (aka nitpicking). Seen it all before - gets boring after a while though hence why I use the ignore feature.


Could be. Then again, it could also be some posters will garble several unrelated and incorrect statements all into one post where each sentence requires it's own level of explanation to separate and catalogue the different statements and point out or redress the inaccuracies, hardly nitpicking. Follow up posts constantly avoid answering blatant inaccuracies in the previous posts and change the subject or link up a random page/Youtube clip as if to say "yeah, see..." even though it's a new topic.

Then there's the constant barage of badly researched reference links "flooding" a particular view, I'd lose faith in human curiosity to aquire knowledge and evaluate reasons put forward if we took what we read purely on face value....that information may be harmful or degrading.

Remember, persecution follows when no-one dares to question the propoganda no matter how inaccurate it is.

regards,

Austin


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> It is a technique called 'flooding' whereby the member 'floods' topics with their own posts to ensure that they get their point across whilst dissecting each individual post in order to ridicule them and sound clever (aka nitpicking). Seen it all before - gets boring after a while though hence why I use the ignore feature.


Nope, you're wrong. I'm not flooding. I'm responding to the posts that other write. Flooding is when someone just writes post after post without an answer to take up space. I'm exchanging opinions with other members and showing them (and the rest of the members) where they've got their facts wrong. Virtually everyone of my posts is in response to one from someone else.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Andromeda said:


> Aaaa... I didn't know...
> Now when I know I will fallow your advice and I will ignore it.


Take that MISinformation and run with it.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Firstly this thread features ex-army & police dog trainer asking about various collars; note they observe reactions from the dog's and as pointed out many times they can turn the things up, as well as ignorant posts "explaining" clicker training badly Dominant Dog Collars vs. Dogtra Remote Collar - German Shepherd Dog

Rather shows the reality of this technology in end user hands, least that trainer is honest about use of force and coercion, he uses "compulsion".

Perhaps someone can guess what significant factor was left out in this post, which is surely far more relevant here than in the thread on Sarah K's thoughts?


Lou Castle said:


> I have no idea why l4l thinks that posting Ms. Kalnajs's CV is of value, but since she has, here's mine. I'll just stick to the K−9 related information and omit the material that is just police related.
> 
> 
> California POST Certified evaluator.
> ...


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i hear that often - i wish it were true, but in general there's a fervent belief that k9s NEED harsh handling
> & that 'corrections' also known as punishment, are absolutely imperative.
> 
> tell me what the dog in this video is being _*"corrected"*_ for?
> ...


Interesting. The dog looks like it's trying to sniff what's in the handlers hand, and the "hit" is administered without him actually raising his hand. It doesn't even look like there's any force whatsoever in this "hit", and hardly a 'correction' either. I think this is a desperate attempt to sensationalise a complete non event, as usual. Not saying it's right, then again I've never agreen to nudging a dog with your knee either, and this looks little more than a nonchalant reaction to the dog being nosey about the shiney unknown object they can't see properly in his owners hand.

In addition, the report is about a bust at a drug store, nothing at all to do with the K9 handler and his dog. Perhaps it was posted by someone who's just looking for an excuse to have a pop at the police for the most trivial reason.

The way your post is made to look Terry, this copper is beating the hell out his dog....I'm glad I clicked the link. More exaggeration to make a scenario that probably happens in homes all the time look like hardcore animal abuse when nothing could be further from the truth.

regards,

Austin


----------

