# disturbingly outdated advice



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Dog Club Advice on Behaviour

this stuff is from the 1960s, my WORD... talk about retro. :eek6: 
the author is Colette Kase - but there is no info on the referred site, petsense.net


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Dog Club Advice on Behaviour
> 
> this stuff is from the 1960s, my WORD... talk about retro. :eek6:
> the author is Colette Kase - but there is no info on the referred site, petsense.net


What a load of codswallop! And she can't even spell. I mean "bourne in mind"? WTF!

I have had dogs for thirty years and never had one deciding that he has a place in the structure of the household. As far as I am concerned, these people dream up these signs of dominance because there is no such thing. Like a dog putting both paws on your legs is a sign of dominance. I believe he just wants a cuddle and that is precisely what he gets.

Trouble is there are still so many of these websites about talking this same old rubbish, than the general pet owning public is never going to get the right message, are they?

There is one very self important dog trainer who comes on this forum sometimes, but for all that he does debunk the pack leader idea. I'm not talking about a regular or anyone who has been on recently.

People who have raised their dogs with this daft idea are set on it and it is no good telling them; their dog is of a type that has to be treated that way, so they waste their time and energy eating first, when the dog doesn't even notice.


----------



## dbtips (Jun 18, 2011)

Very funny article... 

I was confused when asked - Are you a good pack leader??


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

dbtips said:


> Very funny article...
> 
> I was confused when asked - Are you a good pack leader??


Puts on flak jacket... what's so wrong with this advice ?

"Are you a good pack leader? Dogs look to their leaders for safety, security, social structure and guidance. A good pack leader never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain his position. Fear does not help to build healthy relationships. To be a good pack leader, you need to be confident when handling the puppy. You need to be brave when your puppy is worried. You need to be vigilant, observant and quick when guidance is needed. Being gentle, kind, firm and consistent inspires puppies to respond. Being emotional, stressed or angry inspires fear and a lack of trust. If your puppy does not trust your abilities as pack leader, your puppy will have to make decisions for himself and he cant be blamed if those decisions are incorrect."


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

diefenbaker said:


> Puts on flak jacket... what's so wrong with this advice ?
> 
> "Are you a good pack leader? Dogs look to their leaders for safety, security, social structure and guidance. A good pack leader never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain his position. Fear does not help to build healthy relationships. To be a good pack leader, you need to be confident when handling the puppy. You need to be brave when your puppy is worried. You need to be vigilant, observant and quick when guidance is needed. Being gentle, kind, firm and consistent inspires puppies to respond. Being emotional, stressed or angry inspires fear and a lack of trust. If your puppy does not trust your abilities as pack leader, your puppy will have to make decisions for himself and he cant be blamed if those decisions are incorrect."


What is wrong with it is the simple fact that the puppy does not and never will see you as his pack leader. Dogs do not live in packs and even if they did, you are not a dog and your dog knows this. The words are a throwback to an outdated and discredited theory.

The puppy or dog will look to you for his resources, for his food, his nice warm place to live, his walks and his guidance. That does not make you a pack leader, it makes you his source of all things good.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

really, Dief - 
and how about: 


> EXCERPT, *bold added - *
> 
> _ ...dogs live in *clearly defined hierarchies*. There are *leaders and followers*. ...I will ...help you to understand *the way dogs work within these hierarchies* & *how this affects their behaviour.
> 
> ...


* only MALE pups have this supposed 'drive for supremacy'? 
notice that wherever gender might be used, the pup/dog is male.

* _"clearly defined hierarchies"_ - Wrong. Not one study of domestic dogs supports this 
in human-households; dogs do not have linear hierarchies, even *wild wolves* lack linear hierarchies.

* pups strive for elevated status from the day they arrive? Really - at 56-days old? :lol: yeah, right. 


> EXCERPT, *bold added - *
> 
> _Different puppies will have *different levels of desire to climb the social ladder* & different puppies will have
> *different tactics when doing so*. _


how many puppies lock their resistant human-rebels in their bedrooms, cut off their phone-privileges, 
send them from the dinner table without dessert, or freeze their Facebook accounts till they bring their grades up? :huh:

that's ONE paragraph, in the very beginning - how much more BS-dissection would U like? 
frankly, i'm bored with it; anyone who can read at a 6th-grade level or better can find highly-reputable *facts* 
from multiple sources which debunk every syllable of this, & much of the remainder.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

diefenbaker said:


> Puts on flak jacket... what's so wrong with this advice ?
> 
> "Are you a good pack leader? Dogs look to their leaders for safety, security, social structure and guidance. A good pack leader never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain his position. Fear does not help to build healthy relationships. To be a good pack leader, you need to be confident when handling the puppy. You need to be brave when your puppy is worried. You need to be vigilant, observant and quick when guidance is needed. Being gentle, kind, firm and consistent inspires puppies to respond. Being emotional, stressed or angry inspires fear and a lack of trust. If your puppy does not trust your abilities as pack leader, your puppy will have to make decisions for himself and he cant be blamed if those decisions are incorrect."


My problem with this is that the author implies that dogs actually see _us_ as a leader. I understand and appreciate that for some owners, thinking of themselves as a 'pack leader' can be a good way for them to get into the mindset (training, taking a vested interest in their dog's behaviour etc.) but this is purely hypothetical and metaphorical- it stops there. I also have an aversion to these metaphorical wonderings due to the types of training methods that are generally associated, naturally.

I also do not like the anthropomorphic attitude. The view that a dog will try and take over the world, 'making their own decisions', is hilarious. The whole point of training is to teach a dog to make its own decisions- human-acceptable ones. A dog that doesn't make its own decisions is a dog most probably being man-handled, forced into Alpha rolls etc., and going into shutdown and states of learned helplessness frequently.

To summarise, I find it all very wishy-washy, contradictory and just simply not very helpful.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> really, Dief -
> and how about:
> 
> * only MALE pups have this supposed 'drive for supremacy'?
> ...


Really Leashed..... that's lovely but what has it to do with my post ?


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> The puppy or dog will look to you for his resources, for his food, his nice warm place to live, his walks and his guidance. That does not make you a pack leader, it makes you his source of all things good.


By who's definition ? The dog behaviourist's or the common man's ? I think I'm a common man and my wife agrees. Let me try this instead...

"Are you a good owner? Dogs look to their owners for safety, security, social structure and guidance. A good owner never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain his position. Fear does not help to build healthy relationships. To be a good owner, you need to be confident when handling the puppy. You need to be brave when your puppy is worried. You need to be vigilant, observant and quick when guidance is needed. Being gentle, kind, firm and consistent inspires puppies to respond. Being emotional, stressed or angry inspires fear and a lack of trust. If your puppy does not trust your abilities as an owner, your puppy will have to make decisions for himself and he cant be blamed if those decisions are incorrect."

I realise I've changed the words  This paragraph to me is about what the author intended to make a good "pack leader". I don't know about "social structure"... certainly there's some kind of structure in my household and I'm at the top ( the wife disagrees on that one ). Replace "pack leader" or "owner" with "widget". Is the advice good or not ?


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> I also do not like the anthropomorphic attitude.


And I do not like that I must now walk to the study and find my dictionary :blink:


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

diefenbaker said:


> And I do not like that I must now walk to the study and find my dictionary :blink:


'Anthropomorphic' is a common word. I learnt it when I was around 10 I think :blink:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

with PARENT... 


> _ "Are you a good *parent*?
> Dogs look to their *parent* for safety, security, social structure and guidance.
> A good *parent* never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain [her or] his position. Fear does not help
> to build healthy relationships.
> ...


pups are highly dependent, emotionally & physically needy, innocently exploratory, & learning how the world works... 
just like any other infant or juvenile.

as adult-dogs, they are highly dependent, emotionally & physically needy, innocently exploratory, & still learning 
how the world works... just like us, dogs learn all their lives. Even as adults, they cannot buy their own food, 
open the door to exit or enter, take themselves to the vet, get their own vaccines, & so on.

normal human-children grow-up & become independent - pups remain dependent even when they're dogs.

also, as RottieFan pointed out, to successfully live in a human-centric world, pups & dogs need to be given the skills 
to make the right choice, unprompted - despite their species-specific behaviors like alarm-barking, marking 
with urine or stool, free-breeding with any conspecific, opportunistic eating AKA scavenging, & so on - all 'natural', 
& all reasons for the average pet-owner to scream bloody-blue-murder on behavior chat-lists. :huh: oops.

the entire paragraph is a mish-mosh of anthropomorphic hooey, cross-species inapropos expectations, & other 
potentially-disastrous beliefs.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the entire paragraph is a mish-mosh of *anthropomorphic* hooey, cross-species
> inapropos expectations, & other potentially-disastrous beliefs.


sorry,  i hope U've had time to look it up.

if not, here's the Merriam-Webster definition - 
Anthropomorphic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cheers, sorry for the cerebral overexertions due to my unfortunate selection of overly-scholastic terminology, 
- terry

_free translation - 
i'm sorry i made Ur brain sweat by using big words. _


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> with PARENT...
> 
> pups are highly dependent, emotionally & physically needy, innocently exploratory, & learning how the world works...
> just like any other infant or juvenile.
> ...


You and I are obviously not wearing the same glasses. See.. when I read that.. the words that jump out at me are "safety, security, guidance, no physical reprimands, confident, brave when worried, gentle, kind, firm, consistent, not emotional, not stressed, not angry". You're marking it like a lecturer. I would argue that my glasses are more appropriate for a pet forum. And no.. I still don't know what anthropomorphic is.. you're all having a laugh now.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

OK.. now I'm wearing my flak jacket AND my tin-foil hat. What's wrong with the section on "socialisation" ? Or from "Having a sociable dog" downwards.. that's the bulk of the article.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

The whole 'be the pack leader' and 'dogs dominating their owners' thing is lost on me. I have been told not to let my dogs on the bed or the sofa as they will see this as them being in control of me and of situations. I was also told that they may start getting aggresive when told to move from the bed or the sofa. They have never shown me aggression when i have told them to move off the sofa or off my bed. I dont allow them to barge past me through a door but that isnt for me to show my 'dominance' that is just comman curtersy. Do i have to go through the door first? No aslong as they dont try and push their way out they are free to go when the door is opened. As for me eating first, they have to be fed first so i have peace when i eat  Personally i think its kind of a ridiculous notion that my dogs try to dominate me and that i should dominate them. I want my dogs to be happy and do do what i tell them because they want to not because they have to. Otherwise where is the joy in owning a dog??

P.S i cant spell so please ignore any mistakes


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Forgot to add, i have also been told by a 'behavourist' that when harvey has a nibble at the cat food i should *'scruff him, rag him round a bit and force him to the floor and to submit to me, that way you will assert your dominance' *yes well that would also make harvey start to hate me and view me as a bad and unpridictable.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

tashax said:


> Forgot to add, i have also been told by a 'behavourist' that when harvey has a nibble at the cat food i should *'scruff him, rag him round a bit and force him to the floor and to submit to me, that way you will assert your dominance' *yes well that would also make harvey start to hate me and view me as a bad and unpridictable.


But the question is where would this advice fit into the link which is the subject of this thread ? From reading the link would you think the author is for or against this advice ?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

The thread is about outdated training advice which includes dominance and like i said in my post i was told to do that to assert my dominance so it does link in with the thread, I am not going off topic what so ever. i havent read the whole link, as soon as dominance was metioned i got bored, like i do when i see t.v programes about dominace in dogs so i wouldnt know where or if it would fit in with the link.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

tashax said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> Forgot to add, i have also been told by a *'behavourist'* that when Harvey has a nibble at the cat food, i should *'scruff him,
> rag him round a bit & force him to the floor & to submit to me, that way you will assert your dominance'. *
> yes, well - that would also make Harvey start to hate me & view me as a bad and unpridictable.


Yikes! :yikes: that's not a *behaviorist* - which is an academically-credentialed pro with practical skills, 
at minimum a BSci & often a PhD, with a specialty in behavior.

that pile of dog-doo came from a jumped-up twit who if they're labeled a *'behaviorist'* are likely self-anointed, 
or who bought a degree on-line or by mail-order. :nonod: DoG help any human or canine who depends on them for help. 
that's terrifying.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

She deffo wasnt a behavourist. She liked to tell people she was and charge people obscene amounts of money for rediculous and cruel advice. The minute she walked into my house and introduced a prong collar for my terrier she was shown the door. She gave me this advice whilst i was at a friends who had hired her to help with a 'dominant' BC


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Tasha said - 


tashax said:


> The whole 'be the pack leader' and 'dogs dominating their owners' thing is lost on me.
> I've been told not to let my dogs on the bed or... sofa as they'll see this as... being in control of me & of situations.
> I was also told that they may start getting aggresive when told to move from the bed or the sofa.


Dief objected - 


diefenbaker said:


> But the question is where would this advice fit into the link which is the subject
> of this thread? From reading the link, would you think the author is for or against this advice?


from the referenced article - 


> _ From the day your puppy walked into your home [s/he] will have been seeking the comfort and security
> of knowing [her/his] place in the structure of the household. *Most of the interactions your puppy has with you
> & other household members help him to identify [her/his] position in the household pecking order. *
> The main way that this is done is by access to resources. Resources include obvious things such as food & toys
> ...


 - comfortable & high resting places = bed or sofa 
- ability to control other household members = ingress & egress, blocking doorways, etc. 
- ability of humans to control the pup/dog = require manners at the door & other access points. 


diefenbaker said:


> From reading the link, would you think the author is for or against this advice?


from reading the link, i would definitely expect the author to support the idea of no bed, no sofa, & might warn the owner 
that the dog may attack if told to move from the sofa or bed, etc - *which might be true if the dog has a history 
of being punished, collar-grabbed & dragged off, yelled at, etc, in context with the sofa or bed, but it's not automatic 
in all dogs who lie on beds, get up on sofas, or even share them with humans in the household.*

moreover - 


tashax said:


> ...i've also been told by a 'behavourist' that when Harvey has a nibble at the cat food, i should *'scruff him,
> rag him round a bit & force him to the floor & to submit to me, that way you will assert your dominance'. *


maybe the author would not suggest scruff the dog, 'rag him round', or pin the dog - but "access to resources" 
appears to be a worry of hers, yes, so the dog eating the cat-food [which IMO & IME is a management issue, 
not a training issue], would probably prompt concern.

OTOH this sounds common-sense & workable - 


tashax said:


> They've never shown me aggression when i've told them to move off the sofa or off my bed.
> I don't allow them to barge past me through a door, but that isn't for me to show my 'dominance'... just common courtesy.
> Do i have to go through the door first? No, as long as they dont try & push their way out, they're free to go
> when the door is opened. As for me eating first, they have to be fed first so i have peace when i eat
> ...


i think that is eminently sensible & both the dogs & humans are probably very happy with this regimen. :thumbup:


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

tashax said:


> The thread is about outdated training advice which includes dominance and like i said in my post i was told to do that to assert my dominance so it does link in with the thread, I am not going off topic what so ever. i havent read the whole link, as soon as dominance was metioned i got bored, like i do when i see t.v programes about dominace in dogs so i wouldnt know where or if it would fit in with the link.


But this is my whole point. If you had read the link you would see that author of the link is completely anti-punishment of any kind which I happen to think is a good thing.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

tashax said:


> She deffo wasnt a behavourist. She liked to tell people she was & charge people obscene amounts of money
> for ridiculous & cruel advice. The minute she walked into my house & introduced a prong collar for my terrier,
> she was shown the door.


good on ya. :thumbup:

if more pet-owners showed more of these folks the door, IMO there'd be fewer major B-Mod projects for complex 
cases where the dog began with a fairly-simple presenting complaint, like barking at visitors at the door, 
which become massive, complex knots of interlocking behaviors & *c*onditioned *e*motional *r*esponses due to incorrect, 
frightening or aversive handling.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Tasha said -
> 
> Dief objected -
> 
> ...


Objection to what ? You've deliberately misquoted me for your own benefit :nono: My question in post#18 was whether the article author would advocate "'scruff him, rag him round a bit and force him to the floor and to submit to me, that way you will assert your dominance'". I don't see anything in the article that advocates punishment of any kind... in fact quite the opposite... things like...

"Interrupt any inappropriate chewing surreptitiously. When the puppy is distracted, get his attention and ask him to do something for you so that he is getting attention for appropriate behaviour. Then get him focused on something appropriate."


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

diefenbaker said:


> You've deliberately misquoted me for your own benefit :nono:


no, i did not misquote U. U said - 


diefenbaker said:


> ...the question is where would this advice fit into the link which is the subject of this thread ?
> From reading the link would you think the author is for or against this advice ?


i reviewed BOTH of Tasha's posts in light of the author's article - U got 2 for one. :001_smile:

there is also - 


> EXCERPT - *emphasis added - *
> 
> _If your puppy bites, we recommend that you have a command that means 'enough'. Whatever that command is,
> it is imperative that it is not used to nag the puppy. The simple rule is that the puppy is given the 'enough' command once,
> ...


 - how does one remain _"calm & collected",_ & avoid becoming _"emotional or angry_ while dramatically 
_*"shouting really loudly & slamming a door"*_? IMO those seem diametrically opposed: drama & calm, 
unemotional whilst 'shouting really loudly', "collected" while 'slamming a door'.

- in addition, _*"hundreds of repetitions"*_ of _"shouting really loudly & slamming a door"_ 
or other un-specified _"dramatic"_ consequences could cause considerable side-effects - don't U think? 


> EXCERPT - *emphasis added - *
> 
> _There are a number of taste deterrents on the market. Some are much better than others. Your vet will probably
> be able to provide you with a good one. *These can be sprayed regularly on* shoes, clothing and even *hands
> to deter biting*. _


 - this is an off-label use: *taste-deterrents* are for chewing, which is sustained & involves taste - 
not nips & bites, which are brief contact & do not involve taste, but immediate & short-term TOOTH impact. 
taste = tongue, while chewing; tooth = nip or mouth or bite; not chewing.

- if any puppy gnaws on a human as if their body is a chew-toy, U have a different problem from the usual 
nips, bites & mouthing done by young pups.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

If my dog barks to out for a wee in the middle of a tv programme I am watching, if I get up to let him out, he must be controlling me, mustn't he? So I will ignore him and let him wee on the floor just to show him that I am in control!

This, or something similar, is the only scenario I can think of where the dog is in control. The idea that a puppy is thinking about his status in the household is just ridiculous. The puppy comes into your home for the first time, and he is thinking about having a good sniff round, finding out where all the lovely smells are coming from or, in Ferdie's case, licking out all the cups on the coffee tables!

It is absurd to imagine that he is investigating his new premises to discover the best way of taking over


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> no, i did not misquote U. U said -
> 
> i reviewed BOTH of Tasha's posts in light of the author's article - U got 2 for one. :001_smile:
> 
> ...


Yes you DID misquote me. I got 2 for one with a smiley ? You take my response in post#18 and associate it with 2 comments which are not in post#18 ? That's naughty and adding a smiley doesn't make it nice.

You posted a link to an article presumably because you wanted people to read it ? Is that correct ? I didn't read the article and come here saying how great it was... you sent me to it. Did you want people to read it and comment on it ?

Let's go back to where I started... the paragraph I pasted. I see myself as "pack leader". rottiefan was kind enough to point out that due to me being a pet owner and not a dog behaviourist this is "metaphorical"... and I would be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people on this forum who are not dog behaviourists see themselves as a "metaphorical" pack leader... to me it's the same as "head of household"... at cub scouts we had a "pack leader". I still think that the attributes the author lists in that paragraph make a good "metaphorical" pack leader.

I don't like the "door slamming" idea... but I simply don't have to implement it. Just because I think there are some good points doesn't mean I think the whole article is the gospel. You write your responses as though it does in an extremely adversarial manner. It's easy to do and one thing you have in common with the author is a "taste for the dramatic". Note that I do this for demonstration purposes only it is not a point for discussion or a statement of your position.

"Being *gentle, kind*, firm and consistent inspires puppies to respond."



leashedForLife said:


> this stuff is from the 1960s, my WORD... talk about retro. :eek6:


What kind of person doesn't want to be *gentle and kind* to their dog ? I suppose you would prefer to be *rough and mean* :w00t: ?

It's easy to twist things around like this but it's not good netiquette. You have the luxury that you and your views are well known on this forum... I do not.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

diefenbaker said:


> Yes you DID misquote me. I got 2 for one with a smiley ? You take my response in post#18 and associate it with 2 comments which are not in post#18 ? That's naughty and adding a smiley doesn't make it nice.
> 
> You posted a link to an article presumably because you wanted people to read it ? Is that correct ? I didn't read the article and come here saying how great it was... you sent me to it. Did you want people to read it and comment on it ?
> 
> ...


But you "dared" to associate yourself with some of the article, unleashing the beast that is LFL and soon the playground bullies will be after you too, to ensure you do not post anything other than R+. It's not like your a grown up person and can do your own research. The forum has to be bombarded with "you tube" and other "web site finds" that relate to either R+ or controversially something else, so people can read and object and the unleash LFL so that she has her daily dose of fun at other people expense, Do your self a favour and put her on ignore and then you won't get so frustrated. A lot of people have sussed her out ) Have you not noticed that she posts, no one replies to the post, so she posts something to her own posts, keeps her on page 1. Its a self rewarding habit, a bit like R+ I suppose )


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> with PARENT...
> "Are you a good parent?
> Children look to their parents for safety, security, social structure and guidance.
> A good parent never needs to use physical reprimands to maintain [her or] his position. Fear does not help
> ...


OK.. I've tried it with parent and I'm quite liking it.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

diefenbaker said:


> OK.. I've tried it with parent and I'm quite liking it.


I find this, like all of the article, incredibly vague and exhaustive. The 'pack theorists', who see all interactions with our dogs as a representation of a hierarchy, are the only people that seem to write full articles on idealistic leadership qualities. But they don't actually help in any specific way. The ideologies are always more important than the actual methods to them, whereas for ethologically accredited behaviourists, the methods are always at the forefront of their advice and advertisements.

I'm not saying that the author is completely wrong in all that he/she says, but that the writing style is the hallmark of those who follow out-of-date and unsupported theories. And that's why I would personally avoid it as there are many more appropriate, well-accredited courses/options to choose from.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> *emphasis added - *
> 
> I find this, like all of the article, incredibly vague and exhaustive. The 'pack theorists', who see all interactions
> with our dogs as a representation of a hierarchy, are the only people that seem to write full articles on idealistic
> ...


re the phrase in bold - 
yes - i state up-front precisely what tools, methods, etc, will or will not be considered. 
There are no vague "support the owner against the dog's attempt to control the household, as step-One in the dog's 
struggle to climb the ladder of status to final world-domination'. 

dogs as a group are not out to control the world; dogs as individuals are not out to disrespect, ignore, rebel against, 
overthrow, or otherwise resist human-tyranny. *they just want a happy life - to understand how they can fit in, 
with as little conflict & as much self-satisfaction as possible.* they like co-operation, they're a social-species; they enjoy 
mutual activities, & IMO as well as IME, if we give them any opportunity to learn co-operation, they're delighted. :yesnod:

constantly painting dogs as grumbling, sullen slaves, barely held in check by hypervigilant humans who fear rebellion, 
is ridiculous hyperbole; dogs do not *require* force, & they do their best to avoid using it, except in genuine need.

the least we humans can do, with our vaunted opposable thumbs & vaulted brain-cases, full of spare forebrain, 
is *try to do likewise - * avoid physical force & coercion in general, unless it is absolutely imperative.

for myself, i use it only in emergencies - *which by definition are not 'training', as training is planned, 
has a goal, etc.*
emergencies are accidents: the loose-dog who assaults the dog-aggro dog on leash, & so on. we can try to avoid 
all such scenarios, but we cannot entirely control the environs or everything in them.

Hyperbole - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

reminds me of that song..............."you say tomatoe, I say tomato"


----------



## ckase (Nov 22, 2011)

Hello folks. I am the disturbingly outdated trainer who can't write or spell apparently. I found this. I found it amusing. I found it inspiring. I am Colette Kase, the author of that 20 odd year old pamphlet. I retired some years ago and am delighted that the leaflet has opened up a constructive (well almost) dialogue and critique. So it should. Of course it is way out dated. It was written when dominance theory was the new thing and the most humane concept. All of the university programmes as well as the training courses were proudly teaching dominance as the next great thing. 

Of course, as with all good things, we learn and make progress. Yes I did a degree and even in my post grad studies, they were still teaching dominance theory as started by many eminent and highly respected behaviourists and trainers of that time including Ian Dunbar, John Rogerson, John Fisher (RIP), David Applebey, John Bradshaw and many of my professional colleagues and teachers. 

Operant conditioning is the new thing and who knows what will be next. Hopefully another step in the right direction for dogs and their welfare. I appreciate, acknowledge and agree with most of your comments. But it is a bit unfair to pull out a very old piece of training material and rip it to pieces - especially as I didn't even put it up on the internet. If you have any questions, please do get in touch. 

If you'd like to know what I did, I was a Director of SCAS and the CABTSG, head of behaviour and welfare for Dogs' Trust, Bruce Fogle's practice behaviourist and a whole load of other things. I served my time, got my experience and now I do something else. But it's fun to know people talk about me. :laugh:


----------



## ckase (Nov 22, 2011)

Oh and if any of you would like to petition to have that outdated information removed, I'd be more than happy for you to use my name to do so.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

grandad said:


> But you "dared" to associate yourself with some of the article, unleashing the beast that is LFL and soon the playground bullies will be after you too, to ensure you do not post anything other than R+. It's not like your a grown up person and can do your own research. The forum has to be bombarded with "you tube" and other "web site finds" that relate to either R+ or controversially something else, so people can read and object and the unleash LFL so that she has her daily dose of fun at other people expense, Do your self a favour and put her on ignore and then you won't get so frustrated. A lot of people have sussed her out ) Have you not noticed that she posts, no one replies to the post, so she posts something to her own posts, keeps her on page 1. Its a self rewarding habit, a bit like R+ I suppose )


Priceless :laugh: 
Have a treat


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> CC- Operant conditioning is the new thing


New?? 1938 is new! don't think so.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> unleashing the beast that is LFL and soon the playground bullies will be after you too, to ensure you do not post anything other than R+.


Which in fact is not what they 'use' (R+). All posters on here & other forums '_attempt_' to 'use' and advocate others attempt to 'use' negative punishment based…er...well method, L4L promotes negative punishment based 'methods' but incorrectly calls it reinforcment, it's actually a suppressor not a reinforcer.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> The forum has to be bombarded with "you tube" and other "web site finds" that relate to either R+


What's wrong with passing illustrative refs on an internet chat forum? Pictures say more in 30secs than acres of words written & read over numerous days of explanation, the very fact that people on here claim negative punishment behaviour is positive reinforcement behaviour (not just L4L, I find her writings just plain gaga) is proof of that.

Dogs Recall, Emotional Comparisons Of Dogs Response To Owners, 2 Different Training Reinforcers - YouTube
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Ckase-20 odd year old pamphlet.
> |
> It was written when dominance theory was the new thing and the most humane concept. All of the university programmes as well as the training courses were proudly teaching dominance as the next great thing.





> Ckase - Operant conditioning is the new thing and who knows what will be next.


That's interesting, very.

The clear implication, "_what will be next_" at uni, is that both theories, claimed to be cats whiskers of excellence, were/are putting the national dog pack at risk of flawed theories of practice, which amount to nothing more than making uni courses a source of student fee income for uni's using 'modern techniques' & similar course sales blurb as a way to attract candidate student applications & generate the uni income fees.

I think the fact you have informed readers that many dogs which were subjected to this nebulus dominance thingy have come to a sticky end because of what is now promoted as a flawed university taught, promoted & spread theory.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> John Bradshaw and many of my professional colleagues and teachers.


Oh, yea, Mr hidden dodgy data samplings.

2. Bristol University, Quack Dog Dominance Study, Charletons Dr Rachel Casey Dr John Bradshaw - YouTube

.


----------



## ckase (Nov 22, 2011)

Oh well. I keep forgetting that just because people like dogs, doesn't mean they are all nice. Actually Dogs' Trust during my behaviour management had a euthanasia rate of about 3.2% and rehomed nearly 10,000 dogs a year. Things change. Operant conditioning certainly started off in the early 1900's but was only applied in dog training in very recent years. I later taught clicker and operant conditioning to dog trainers and behaviourists. Again, it's a bit unfair taking an out of date piece of material, which was not published on the internet by me and being so mean about it. It's much more constructive for us all to look back, learn from our own and others' mistakes and move forward towards something positive. I'm almost very excited about the future of dog training and behaviour - as long as dog people can find a way to stop their own battles for dominance and try to get on, support each other and recognise and reinforce teh good they are doing. Good luck to everyone here. I won't be posting again. I run a humane education non profit (at my own cost just in case you think I'm doing something like making money at it) in a developing country now (oh but all the harm I do in the world) and have to attend to that. 

I must say as I haven't already. I was on the frontline of debunking the dominance myth and was selling and promoting Karen Pryor's work before most dog trainers had ever heard of it - possibly before many of you even started studying dog behaviour. A little more research or even the courtesy of contacting me (I'm very easy to find), would have been lovely.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ckase said:


> ... if any of you would like to petition to have that outdated information removed,
> I'd be more than happy for you to use my name to do so.


hey, Colette! 
i am _THRILLED_ to learn that it's over 20-years old, & moreover was posted by someone else. :thumbup1:

but as U're the author, why wouldn't *U* want to remove it, :001_huh: as it was swiped w/o permission?

intellectual theft is not something that i take lightly; intellectual property is just as real as any other, it may be 
more amorphous when it's on the Web, as opposed to a solid object like a book, a car, or a wallet, but it still 
*belongs* to the author, not to any faceless yob who wants to snatch it.

now that U know where it is, why not tell the site-owners Urself to remove it, toot-sweet?
no-one else can legally DEMAND that they take it down; we aren't the author or owners of copyright.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Which in fact is not what they use (R+).
> 
> All posters on here & other forums _attempt_ to use, & advocate [that] others attempt to use,
> negative punishment based er... well method, L4L promotes negative punishment based methods
> but incorrectly calls it reinforcment, it's actually a suppressor not a reinforcer.


 - a suppressor of any behavior is AKA a punisher. 
i can *punish* without adding / using any aversive, physical or emotional: 
Negative punishment deducts ['negative'] something the dog / learner would gladly work for, 
as a consequence of an Un-Desired behavior.

Ex: 
we are working on 'Fetch', & the young dog attempts to convert the hand-off to a Tug-Of-War game. 
*i drop my end, & turn away without comment.* the dog walks after me a few steps, seems puzzled, 
& eventually comes to my front, & stands quietly holding the item. I smile, extend my hand, say, _"Give",_ 
& the dog drops it into my open palm. NOW, *i praise warmly, AND we play tug!* :thumbup:

however, even neg-P is vastly outnumbered & outweighed by the number of times that i reward [pos-R] 
desired behaviors - IF IT WERE NOT, my training-plans are badly designed & need a major overhaul!

reward-based training uses pos-R preferentially; training is designed to goof-proof the process as much as possible, 
making the 'right' answer / desired behavior as easy & indeed inevitable as we can, & 'wrong' answers AKA 
un-desired behaviors as difficult & preferably well-nigh impossible as we can.

when any desired behavior occurs, whether spontaneously-offered or cued, we have an opportunity to reward, 
thus reinforcing the behavior & making it more-likely to recur. Adding a CUE or label to the action once the dog 
is performing the behavior 4 times of 5, gives us the means to put it under stimulus-control: now, we can ASK 
for that behavior via a hand-signal, verbal cue, or have it under *environmental cue:* 
Ex, 
i am preparing a meal; i open the frig, remove some ingredients, & put them on the counter. 
MY DOG recognizes the signs of meal-prep, gets up from the cool spot in the corner, & goes out the door, 
to lie on the dog-bed in the hall & watch quietly while i work. Every now & then, i may toss a tidbit... 
a bit of cheese, a hunk of carrot - as a reward for staying on the dog-bed, out of my way [it's a small kitchen]. 
that's an Environmental Cue.

another good one: 
Every time U pick-up the baby's carrier/carseat, the dog KNOWS to move out of the way - having been taught 
to do this, now there is no cue needed other than picking-up the infant carrier. :thumbup1:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Actually Dogs' Trust during my behaviour management had a euthanasia rate of about 3.2% and rehomed nearly 10,000 dogs a year


I cannot understand why DT puts down so few in comparison to RSPCA which the last figs I saw put out were a phenominaly high %, do you have any idea why? some years ago folks were saying RSPCA took anything that came & dogs trust took easier dogs but of course that was net talk so mayb right, maybe not, do you have any ideas why the difference


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> I cannot understand why DT puts down so few in comparison to RSPCA which the last figs I saw put out were a phenominaly high %, do you have any idea why? some years ago folks were saying RSPCA took anything that came & dogs trust took easier dogs but of course that was net talk so mayb right, maybe not, do you have any ideas why the difference


Because they only have to growl and the RSPCA label them aggressive and pts. They don't give them a proper assessment.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

excerps from Rob's excellent Glossary, which includes sources: 
Glossary - Explanation of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Jargon - Pet Forums Community



> *functional rewards*:
> often distractions are something the dog likes to do lots,
> e-g) Greet or play with another dog, or sniff in a corner, which may therefore be used to reward
> work. Gains importance [past the] puppy-stage, when food rewards lose relative value,
> ...


the terms NEGATIVE & POSITIVE are math-terms: 
*negative* removes or blocks, *positive* adds or allows.

Pos-R & Neg-P
*what can we ADD to reinforce a behavior?* Rewards. 
*what can we DEDUCT to suppress a behavior?* The OPPORTUNITY to earn rewards: 
the trainer leaves, the game stops, the door closes, etc. 
These are the 2 quadrants that *reward-based trainers* utilize, emphasizing pos-R/rewards 
& minimizing neg-P / removing the chance for rewards. Generally, a 10:1 ratio is average [reward/removal]; 
for pups or dogs who are just beginning lessons, a 20:1 or more ratio of rewards to removal-of-rewards 
is recommended, as they need early, frequent success to build their enthusiasm & trust in training.

Pos-P & Neg-R 
*what can we ADD to suppress a behavior?* 
Punishers - which can be physically or emotionally aversive.

*what can we DEDUCT to reinforce a behavior?* 
A currently-applied aversive: the choke-chain relaxes, the prongs slacken, the stim stops. 
An emotional aversive can also be applied & removed: the hard stare & looming body-language stop, 
when the dog sits in place again, after breaking a Sit-Stay.

these are the 2 quadrants that traditional-trainers utilize, emphasizing the application & removal of such 
time-honored tools as choke-chains, prongs, leash-jerks, pushing the dog's butt down into a sit, etc. 
often praise is the sole 'reward', & verbal praise is not an extremely-motivating reward when it has 
not been classically-associated with other, more tangible rewards [food, a toy, play, real-life opps, etc].


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Oh, yea, Mr hidden dodgy data samplings.
> 
> 2. Bristol University, Quack Dog Dominance Study, Charletons Dr Rachel Casey Dr John Bradshaw - YouTube
> 
> .


Yes, because the idiotic rantings of a no-nothing who loves hitting dogs will persuade me that a peer reviewed paper is wrong. It this idiot had a case, he would have made it in the same journal.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

ckase said:


> I am Colette Kase, the author of that 20 odd year old pamphlet. I retired some years ago and am delighted that the leaflet has opened up a constructive (well almost) dialogue and critique. So it should. Of course it is way out dated. It was written when dominance theory was the new thing and the most humane concept. All of the university programmes as well as the training courses were proudly teaching dominance as the next great thing.


A common experience to those of us who keep learning and researching. Not too long ago, I re-read a paper I co-authored as a post grad but not yet phd, on RNA. I was very proud of it at the time as it was one of my first and on a prestigious journal. 15 years later... well lets say that the past 30 years in molecular biology has been like dog years. We were right about the basics, but way off on our predictions and about what it would eventually mean...

It's an experience that the know-nothings like Millan and his acolytes will never have because it requires learning instead of believing.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Because they only have to growl and the RSPCA label them aggressive and pts. They don't give them a proper assessment.


Sadly, I think that this is the case with most rescues at the moment. Even the ones that have elaborate policies that say they 'Never put a healthy dog down' or others that say 'We only put dogs down for serious behavioural or medical reasons'. It just simply isn't the case.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Sadly, I think that this is the case with most rescues at the moment. Even the ones that have elaborate policies that say they 'Never put a healthy dog down' or others that say 'We only put dogs down for serious behavioural or medical reasons'. It just simply isn't the case.


No it isn't. My friend recently had to give up her much loved spaniel because he badly bit her 18 month old grandaughter. The dog had never liked children and she managed the situation by always having him muzzled when out or when children came to the house. This day she did not get to the muzzle straight away and this was the result.

She rang me to see what the best options were. I told her to phone the Dogs Trust and Cocker Spaniel Rescue. Both said they would pts if he had bitten a child. So much for Dogs Trust's promise never to put a healthy dog down.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

newfiesmum said:


> No it isn't. My friend recently had to give up her much loved spaniel because he badly bit her 18 month old grandaughter. The dog had never liked children and she managed the situation by always having him muzzled when out or when children came to the house. This day she did not get to the muzzle straight away and this was the result.
> 
> She rang me to see what the best options were. I told her to phone the Dogs Trust and Cocker Spaniel Rescue. Both said they would pts if he had bitten a child. So much for Dogs Trust's promise never to put a healthy dog down.


Rehoming a known child biter would be very irresponsible, and I would think leave the rehoming centre in a lot of trouble if it bit again, as your friends grandaughter found out it only takes a laps in procidure for it to happen. Could the dog be cured, possibly, but it would take time, money and skill.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Jenny Olley said:


> Rehoming a known child biter would be very irresponsible, and I would think leave the rehoming centre in a lot of trouble if it bit again, as your friends grandaughter found out it only takes a laps in procidure for it to happen. Could the dog be cured, possibly, but it would take time, money and skill.


I agree, but they shouldn't be advertising that they never put a healthy dog down. The Dogs Trust ad gives the impression that the dog will stay there and be looked after if he cannot be rehomed. That is not the case.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

newfiesmum said:


> I agree, but they shouldn't be advertising that they never put a healthy dog down. The Dogs Trust ad gives the impression that the dog will stay there and be looked after if he cannot be rehomed. That is not the case.


I would include mental health within healthy, but that is probably because i often work with dogs with behavioural issues, so I would class a child biter as not a healthy dog, but i do understand this is only my take on it, and other opinions would differ.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> I agree, but they shouldn't be advertising that they never put a healthy dog down. The Dogs Trust ad gives the impression that the dog will stay there and be looked after if he cannot be rehomed. That is not the case.


Are you sure about that?
I was under the impression that the DT has a specially built facility for permanent residents that cannot be rehomed.

ETA..... Here it is, the sanctuary http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/rehoming/hardtorehome/default.aspx


----------



## Rottsmum (Aug 26, 2011)

Jenny Olley said:


> I would include mental health within healthy, but that is probably because i often work with dogs with behavioural issues, so I would class a child biter as not a healthy dog, but i do understand this is only my take on it, and other opinions would differ.


I agree but I would also say that it depends upon the context and severity of the bite. There is a massive difference between a dog snapping at a child and/or person who has been tormenting it (in which case I don't think that the dog is mentally unbalanced at all and therefore does not deserve to be pts) or repeated and sustained attacks against people (in which case it probably is "wired" wrong and not mentally healthy and should be pts)

Many rescues don't seem to want to bother with the details, to them a bite is a bite. The fact that they will refuse or put down a dog with a bite history is the reason why so many people handing the dogs in lie about bite history, which then goes on to cause a whole heap of problems further down the line.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Daneandrottiemum said:


> I agree but I would also say that it depends upon the context and severity of the bite. There is a massive difference between a dog snapping at a child and/or person who has been tormenting it (in which case I don't think that the dog is mentally unbalanced at all and therefore does not deserve to be pts) or repeated and sustained attacks against people (in which case it probably is "wired" wrong and not mentally healthy and should be pts)
> 
> *Many rescues don't seem to want to bother with the details*, to them a bite is a bite. The fact that they will refuse or put down a dog with a bite history is the reason why so many people handing the dogs in lie about bite history, which then goes on to cause a whole heap of problems further down the line.


That may be becasue they have so many other dogs that they have to rehome that they can't (rather than won't) take on those that remain there for a while.

How many people would really take on a dog knowing it had bitten previously (regardless of the circumstances), it also may be that alot of rescues would be worried about being sued should the dog bite again. If they knew the dog had a 'bite history' I wonder whether legally they could be held accountable for a further incident.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

Daneandrottiemum said:


> I agree but I would also say that it depends upon the context and severity of the bite. There is a massive difference between a dog snapping at a child and/or person who has been tormenting it (in which case I don't think that the dog is mentally unbalanced at all and therefore does not deserve to be pts) or repeated and sustained attacks against people (in which case it probably is "wired" wrong and not mentally healthy and should be pts)
> 
> Many rescues don't seem to want to bother with the details, to them a bite is a bite. The fact that they will refuse or put down a dog with a bite history is the reason why so many people handing the dogs in lie about bite history, which then goes on to cause a whole heap of problems further down the line.


But this dog "badly bit" an 18 month old. The problem with taking a history is you are only getting that persons opinion of what happened, and we all know that is often inaccurate.

Rescue centres are full, there are not enough good homes to go round, some dogs because of their behavioural issues are unsafe to rehome.

Its a very sad state of affairs caused often by people not understanding the responsibilities of dog ownership.

I've dealt with hundreds of clients over the years with rescue dogs with major issues, and I admire each and every one of them for the time and dedication they have put into managing and curing their dogs issues.

I wish I had an answer, but I think the thread is now way off subject.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Paganman said:


> Are you sure about that?
> I was under the impression that the DT has a specially built facility for permanent residents that cannot be rehomed.
> 
> ETA..... Here it is, the sanctuary Dogs Trust - Hard to Rehome


Yes, I know about that. That is why I told her to phone them, but they said if he had bitten a child they would have to euthanise him.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Daneandrottiemum said:


> I agree, but I'd also say that *it depends upon the context & severity of the bite.*
> 
> There's a massive difference between a dog snapping at a child &/or person who's tormenting,
> in which case I don't think that the dog is mentally unbalanced at all &... does not deserve to be PTS,
> ...


i very heartily agree. :nonod:

shelters & rescues should be truthful about their policies, as SOME will rehab dogs with issues; others cannot, 
as they lack the space, experienced trainers, time, or money to do so; some are petrified by the potential for 
liability, so altho they *have the means,* they absolutely will not engage in B-Mod, for fear of risk.

it never seems to occur to the person surrendering their pet that FULL DISCLOSURE is imperative, to give 
their dog the best chance for a new home-situation that actually suits her or him; to say nothing of possible 
injury to anyone, if the dog is plopped into circs that are a well-known trigger for panic, anger, or anxiety.

Dogs who are fearful of children aren't monsters, in most cases they just have not met many kids, who are 
noisier, more erratic, more emotional, faster, & so on, than adults; kids shout, push, smack, fall down, 
throw things, cry loudly, run about madly, throw tantrums, & are basically a dog-nightmare, until they're used 
to the row & aren't intimidated by the sudden changes in mood & activity.

SOME dogs have had bad experiences with children, but for most it is simple ignorance that scares them; 
the unknown is potentially dangerous, & even when we explore the unknown by choice, it provokes anxiety. 
for dogs, who do not "choose" but are plunged into whatever situation *we choose to put them into,* 
novelty is even-more scary, as they don't choose it & often cannot escape it, once there - they are stuck.

B-Mod which makes a child the harbinger of happy-events is very effective, as is controlling the mayhem: 
managing the CHILD & the ENVIRONS to prevent the dog being pursued, hugged, teased, hassled while resting, 
or otherwise interfered with by a well-intentioned but pesky child, keeps the dog reassured of sanctuary.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Again, it's a bit unfair taking an out of date piece of material
You make it sound like it was 20 years ago, the one below was only 9 & you were going strong then. Lets face it Colette, your no different from 90% of the commercial pet dog owner training/behaviourist industry, if its salable promote it & earn from it thats what buisness is all about & your a buisness woman, no better or worse than the rest of the commercial trainers or behaviourists out there.

July 2002-CK
"_Colette also talked about hierarchy. "Make sure the family comes through a door before the puppy," she advised. "Coco has to know her place in the household, which is last._

Cries, wails and puppy-dog tails - Telegraph


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

I'll give credit where is due Colette, your all great salespeople, the guy below really was fooled for 2 years thinking he was being taught how to give his dog freedom (i.e. reliable recall), lol. lol....you guys really do know how to atrract the suckers :cornut:

2 years training classes and no results.
_I live in London so as you can imagine it's vey expensive. My first trainer's rate was £150 for 2 hours, the second one was £300 for several sessions, third was £160 for two hours and the fourth was £80 for one hour.._
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/179338-remote-spray-collar-advice-2.html


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> "Dogs are pack animals," *he* said. "As soon as they enter a house, there is a struggle for dominance and they're trying to get your attention just as children do. Do you think Oliver's feeling left out?"


You're quoting what was reported to have been said by Phil Buckley of the Kennel Club and not by Collette Kase.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> You're quoting what was reported to have been said by Phil Buckley of the Kennel Club and not by Collette Kase.


Right I changed it to what CK said, after reading that looks like I'll have to learn how to train myself to go out the door first instead of the current crisis of her going first.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Again, it's a bit unfair taking an out of date piece of material
> You make it sound like it was 20 years ago, the one below was only 9 & you were going strong then. Lets face it Colette, your no different from 90% of the commercial pet dog owner training/behaviourist industry, "if its salable promote it & earn from it" that's what buisness is all about & your a buisness woman, no better or worse than the rest of the commercial trainers or behaviourists out there.


Whether 1 day or 1 century, the important thing is that people are capable of learning and stop using ineffective and harsh methods. Some people are capable of growth and some trolls resent them for it.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Some people are capable of growth


Absolutely, I agree, heres one whole load of NW trainers saw growth in their bank accounts from the punter below, but hey, I thought that was a great sales pitch by one of them she guaranteed a recall, got paid & when the dog still boged off on its own for the night she did her own running off with the punters money ahahahaha, only a stupid punter eh Corinth:thumbup1:

As I said, credit where credits due, if these punters put themselves up as suckers why not, to hell with the dogs best interests, after all its only collateral.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/200810-reward-training-trick-treat.html
.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Absolutely, I agree, heres one whole load of NW trainers saw growth in their bank accounts from the punter below, but hey, I thought that was a great sales pitch by one of them she guaranteed a recall, got paid & when the dog still boged off on its own for the night she did her own running off with the punters money ahahahaha, only a stupid punter eh Corinth:thumbup1:
> 
> As I said, credit where credits due, if these punters put themselves up as suckers why not, to hell with the dogs best interests, after all its only collateral.
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing the example of the troll.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Given that the resident troll is wording his posts in such a way as to suggest he is talking directly to the individual being discussed, I would like to point out that I am NOT Colette Kase, just in case anyone else jumps to conclusions. No idea who she is.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> No idea who she is.


There's a new poster 'ckase' who joined to post in this thread Colette.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Ah that makes sense, I'd missed that in my skimming of the thread. Thanks.


----------



## ckase (Nov 22, 2011)

OK. Let's try again. Wow this really is a nest of vipers. The article that was quoted on the original thread was written in the early 90's. I make no apology for it. That was what was being taught both in practical courses and at University level. As soon as I started learning a new approach, I started using it and quite a few years ahead of most of the trainers I knew. 

I've asked the dog club uk people to remove the old offending article and they have done so.

Just so you known that I'm not out there abusing any more dogs (never mind that most of my career was in animal welfare and rescue) by telling their owners to let them walk through the door first - god forbid that could be very dangerous. And of course lets not forget that the non profit I established to help homeless people with pets as well as setting up the Dogs' Trust behaviour programme were clearly designed as an evil cover for my desire to hurt dogs and their owners.

I'm retired. I retired nearly 7 years ago. I run a humane education programme in schools in a developing country and volunteer for the local humane society. Given that most dogs in the world don't even receive fresh water or adequate food daily, I must do my pennance by never ever giving anyone any advice on operant conditioning or clicker training (most dogs where I live now are trained through beating) as I might, in several years down the road, find that my old advice is somewhere on the internet, causing people to further abuse their animals.

Honestly folks, do you really think that ripping apart a retired dog trainer, who really did study hard, spend most of her time in animal welfare, underwent ongoing professional training right til the very end and who happily changed her methods (that said, I never did use choke chains, pinch collars and was an active campaigner against shock collars) helps most of the dogs in the world?

Hugs and love to all of you who are doing great things for dogs and I hope that you find that your own mistakes are as quickly forgiven as those you are so quick to point out that others make.

It is ironic that many of you claim to be positive and humane trainers, but are incapable of applying those concepts to your fellow human beings. I studied hard, cared deeply about the people and dogs I worked with and did my best within the context of what was known and available at the time. All I can say is if you cannot accept that someone did their very best and changed their views as time changed, you really are extremely harsh and maybe not as positive and humane as you'd like to claim. The fact that I agree with and support the methods of training that you all are advocating now is clearly not enough, so if I'm ever in England again, I'll get in touch so that you can hold a public lynching - as that seems to be the only thing that will satisfy some of you. So, sad to see that the dog training community has come to this and instead of seeing the positive, encouraging it and supporting each other, some would choose to spend their time trying to hurt others.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ckase said:


> I've asked the dog-club UK people to remove the old offending article and they have done so.


Hurrah! :thumbup: Most excellent, well-done, You!

taking outdated or wrong-info off the 'net is a constant chore, & preventing such info from being taken 
as Gospel by beginning-learners is IMO, an extremely important part of that job. :thumbup1: Thanks so much 
for asking the site-owners to delete it, & i'm very glad they did. 


ckase said:


> It is ironic that many of you claim to be positive & humane trainers, but are incapable of applying those concepts
> to your fellow human beings. I studied hard, cared deeply about the people & dogs I worked with, & did my best
> within the context of what was known and available at the time.


 - there was no DATE on the article, Colette - how were we to know its age? 
i thought that it was 'current', as i'm sure many did - since the PAGE had a recent copyright.

- when we know better, we do better; no-one is denying that people can *learn* & then do better. 
None of us could possibly know that this was a 'period piece' from 2-decades ago. 


ckase said:


> All I can say is if you cannot accept that someone did their very best & changed their views as times changed,
> you really are extremely harsh, & maybe not as positive & humane as you'd like to claim.


all of us, i'm sure, know MANY trainers who were formerly-traditional or frankly even harshly-aversive, 
but have changed their tools & methods markedly & now both teach & use reward-based methods. 
No trainer that i know goes about damning & blasting them for what they did THEN, in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. 
So i'd disagree that forgiveness is impossible - we just didn't know that U had moved on, long ago. 
How could we?

there are thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of *crossover trainers* in the USA alone. 
world-wide, who knows how many? That they DID learn better, & are now doing things differently, 
is wonderful - i think they themselves feel worse about the dogs & clients from their pasts, than others do.

i know for myself, tho my mentor was FOR HER TIME a very fair, kind trainer, i am truly sorry that my dog 
was trained with a choke-collar... & if i had him today, what i could make of him would be incredible, as he was 
a wonderful dog; but i was 10-YO at the time. Over 30-years later, bemoaning what i did at the instruction 
of my then-coach is silly. I can vow to give much-better instruction to everyone i meet now, but i cannot 
change the past; that was then. 


ckase said:


> The fact that I agree with & support the methods of training that you all are advocating now is clearly not enough...
> if I'm ever in England again, I'll get in touch so that you can hold a public lynching... that seems to be
> the only thing that will satisfy some of you.


i'd say that's hyperbole.  i don't think anyone has a new rope knotted, & a gallows built. 


ckase said:


> ...sad to see that the dog-training community has come to this, & instead of seeing the positive, encouraging it
> & supporting each other, some would choose to spend their time trying to hurt others.


that's _*definitely*_ not true - I have fellow-trainers that i've never met in the flesh, yet they're 
helpful, very supportive, & a font of information when i need a reference, a text, or suggestions for a client, 
etc - Anne Rogers AKA *tripod*, Caroline-H, Cori, FunForFido, & a number of other PF-uk trainers 
have provided HUGE helpings of solid, useful, safe information here, to APOs & fellow-trainers alike.

heck, there are a number of gifted amateurs on PF-uk who are terrific trainers, tho they only train 
their own dogs - & they, too, are quick to volunteer helpful info & suggestions to anyone who asks. :thumbup1:

Please hang-around for a bit? i think U'll find we aren't such monsters as we seemed.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

On the whole people on Petforums aren't a 'nest of vipers', it's mostly just the one snake. I'll leave you to work out which one.


----------

