What is Dog Friendly and/or Positive?

Leon the Friendly Dog
As Opposed to Dog Friendly
(though he is that too)

There is so much information available on dog training via the Internet and books, and there are many trainers from all sides who claim their way is the "correct" way. It's hard for a pet owner to figure out the right thing to do. In fact, some training methods and tools are the subject of hot debate in the professional dog-training world.


Before that question is answered, let me explain what my own personal definition of dog friendly is. To be dog friendly is to offer your companion dog what they need in terms of food, shelter, exercise, training, and affection. The key words here are "what they need".

Second, the definition that I have for positive is different than the extremist positive movement in dog training, and you can find this definition in the dictionary.  The defintion of postive I use has the meaning "Measured or moving forward or in a direction of increase or progress."  Positive to me is allowing the dog to fulfill their potential and be all that they can be.


Each dog is an individual. As a dog trainer, I have never trained two dogs in the exact same way. The differences may be subtle in some instances, and very obvious in others. Furthermore, as I have witnessed improved relations in dogs who were problems to families, I don't go by the theory that some trainers share that only the most sedate and friendly of dogs should be pets. Indeed, some dogs are born with a certain drive and high intelligence that may not make them the right pet for most families. However, that same dog might be perfect for another family who wishes to do some very specialized activities. My family for instance is one such family. Finally, in that some negative behaviors in dogs come about from the lack of training and care by their human owners, it is our responsibility to make that right in so far as it is safe and possible to. These experiences, as a professional trainer with the time I have spent socializing and training dogs in shelters, have helped me develop my personal idea of "dog-friendly" and "positive" (the training definition and not the 4 quadrant definition or the extremist positive movement definition).

Many results based dog trainers use some additional tools and methods in their trade. These tools vary from trainer to trainer based on their interests and specializations. There are tools such as the prong collar; metal training collar, nylon slip collar, and electronic collars (talking about those that cause the most controversy, and the least research among some trainers) that are humane and dog -friendly training methods and tools when properly used, under the guidance of a professional trainer. These tools can not only quickly help an owner obedience train their dog quickly and effectively, they can also provide such things as increased freedoms and safety for the dog due to the speed and effectiveness of their obedience training. Freedom, purpose, and increased inclusion with their family is the highest value reward that I can think of (long term).

There are some trainers and even certain professional organizations are folding to the pressure of what is called "purely positive" training. This is a whole different can of worms that I can't get into in detail at this point. However, this political movement in the dog training world is the belief that EVERY dog can be trained without leash corrections, collar corrections, verbal corrections, body corrections, or any kind of negative or stressful stimulus no matter how slight it may be.

This is the reason that I am highly offended by the hijacking of this term, dog friendly and positive (along with a whole list of definitions that have been changed and manipulated) by parties with only their personal interests in mind. We are all professionals, and we all got into this business because of our love of dogs. I am proud to call myself a results-based, dog-friendly, and definitely positive trainer.

Need your dog trained? Visit the http://www.mannerlymutts.com services page. Or contact me at 207-361-4395 in York Maine. Ask for Robin Rubin, Dog Trainer.

Say no to HSUS, PETA, No Shock Collar Coalition (NSCC) or Truly Dog Friendly Organization (TDF). Articles and information on why I do not support these organizations is on here and here.









Need your dog trained?  Visit the http://www.mannerlymutts.com services page.   Or contact me at 207-361-4395 in York Maine.   Ask for Robin Rubin, Dog Trainer.


Say no to HSUS, PETA, No Shock Collar Coalition (NSCC) or Truly Dog Friendly Organization (TDF).  Articles and information on why I do not support these organizations is on here and here.

Ignorance is Not Bliss, It's Stupidity

http://doxienews.com/2009/05/27/the-queen-and-her-dorgis/comment-page-1/#comment-325

Oh, don't make me say anymore, this rubbish just gives me a headache. You can't say the animal rights movement doesn't know what they are doing, and catch the attention of the niave simpletons who follow.

Good Lord.

Sorry about that, I have managed to remain non political lately, but this just fried my fanny. This twerp wants to limit rights of responsible breeders so that the numb nutts can keep irresponsibly breeding dogs. Excellent.

Mannerly Mutts Dog Training
Mannerly Mutts Blog
mannerly_mutt@yahoo.com

Northern Illinois is Presenting Bill for Euthanization of Exotics Transported in the Future

Northern Illinois Bill presented to euthanize future exotics as posted as an action alert below. This is truly how frightening and unreal it's getting in other states as well. Love your pets? Pay attention.

Sheryl Robinson
> President
> Northern Illinois Parrot Society
> president@...
> 847-254-0591 (cell)
> ACTION ALERT - FROM AFA, ASA, and NAIA, with additional information from PIJAC
> WE NEED YOUR HELP - WHETHER YOU OWN AN "EXOTIC" ANIMAL OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL.
> HR 669 IS SET FOR HEARING ON 4/23/09.
> WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO KILL HR 669 NOW.
> THE ISSUE - WHAT IS HR 669? - WHAT WILL IT DO?
> "ONE GENERATION AND OUT" is not just limited to purebred dogs and cats. Now our "non-native" species" are targets of the animal prohibitionist agenda. Under HR 669, "non-native" basically means if a species of animal didn't live in the US before the arrival of Columbus it is "non-native" , and if HR 669 passes, most non-native species of animal (i.e., exotic animals) won't remain in the US much longer. That means your exotic pet bird, reptile, fish, or mammal.
> HR 669 is a very serious and harmful animal prohibition proposal. HR 669 is not needed to protect our environment. HR 699 is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb that is aimed at the entire US exotic pet industry, all US exotic pet owners, and all exotic animals in the US .
> HR 669 is an "anti-animal bill". There is no amendment that can fix this bill. HR 669 will hurt everyone who owns an animal, and it will hurt our animals. Breeder, pet owner, rescuer, rehabilitator, zoo, service or product provider - it doesn't matter - we will all be hurt by this bill. HR 669 needs to be killed at the April 23rd hearing - not amended, not "made better" - HR 669 NEEDS TO BE KILLED. Please contact the Representatives hearing this bill NOW and ask them to KILL HR 669 (see below for contact information) .
> All import, export, transport across State lines, selling, buying, bartering, or offering to sell, buy or barter, and all breeding, and release, of all non-native species not on the "approved list" will be prohibited - even by zoos, sanctuaries, and licensed breeders. Permits authorizing only "importation" may be issued to "zoos, scientific research, medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary". There is no requirement that any permits be granted. Even if these institutions are able to obtain the required permits, where will they obtain their imported animals? Habitat for many species is declining worldwide, many species are endangered or threatened in the wild, and many species cannot be imported to the US under the CITES treaty. The result of this bill will be to put a stop domestic breeding of most endangered or threatened species in the US for zoos, conservation, or reintroduction programs. Zoos are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.
> If you "possess" a non-approved species "legally" prior to enactment of the law, you will be allowed to keep it, but all of the other restrictions pf HR 669 will still apply to your species - you will not be allowed to sell, transfer, transport across State lines, export, barter, trade, breed, or give that animal to anyone else.
> Pet owners will not be allowed to take their non-approved pets with them if they move to another state, and they will not be allowed to transfer them to anyone else who can care for them. Those pets will be euthanized when their owners move, die, or can no longer keep their pets for whatever reason. Pet owners and their pets are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.
> "Rescue" and "sanctuary" will not be available for any non-approved species unless the rescue or sanctuary keeps only species found within their respective States. That result has been contemplated for years. Rescues and Sanctuaries are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.
> Any person or company manufacturing or selling food or products for non-native (exotic) species will be affected by this act. If non-native (exotic) species cannot be legally possessed, bought, sold, or transferred, there will be no incentive for manufacturers of food, caging, and supplies for these animals to remain in business. Where will non-native (exotic) animal owners obtain the food and materials needed to keep their animals?
> Freeflight of exotic birds will be prohibited.
> THE LEGAL DETAILS OF THIS BILL
> Under existing federal law, it must be shown that a species is harmful before it is prohibited. That approach is reasonable, and has worked reasonably well for many years. In essence, HR 669 turns that reasonable approach on its head, and substitutes the unreasonable and unjustified approach of "bomb first, ask questions later".
> HR 669 requires the government to create an "approved" list of "non-native" species that will be allowed in the US . Any species not on the "approved" list will be prohibited. Under HR 668 the "approved" list shall include "nonnative wildlife species that the Secretary finds ... based on scientific and commercial information .... (A) are not harmful to the United States' economy, the environment, or other animal species' or human health; or (B) may be harmful to the United States' economy, the environment, or other animal species' or human health, but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States."
> It takes time and money for the government to study any species and make a "finding". Time and money are always in short supply, and are especially in short supply in this economy. If your species is not included on the original "approved list", then under HR 669 you can try to get your species "approved" by paying a fee and submitting a proposal to our government to include it on the "approved list". Your proposal "must include sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' or human health." While your proposal is being "evaluated" by our government, you and your animals are still subject to the restrictions of HR 669. Whether your proposal will ever be granted is pure speculation.
> There are more than 9000 bird species, and thousands of species of birds are kept in the US. There are many other non-native (exotic) species owned by animal lovers across the US . How many bird or other non-native (exotic) species do you think our government can afford to study and determine that they can be added to this newly created "approved list"?
> If the required study can't be made of a species, and the required finding isn't made about a species, the animal won't make it to the approved list. That applies to every species of non-native (exotic) animal.
> WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP KILL HR 669
> Contact your Representatives NOW
> 1. You can use NAIA's Capwiz tool to send an automatic email or fax to each of the Representatives who will hear this bill to ask them to KILL HR 669. Here's the link to send your email using Capwiz:
>
> 2. PIJAC has provided us with a PDF flyer which explains to pet owners how HR 669 will hurt all of us and our animals. The PIJAC PDF flyer is attached to this email. The PIJAC PDF flyer provides you with contact information - use it. Please contact your own Representatives NOW, and tell them to KILL HR 669. Be polite and respectful, but be clear and firm in your opposition to this bill. Be brief, and tell them a few reasons why you think it is a bad bill. Short and to the point works best. If you have time, you can also contact all of the other Representatives in your State.
> Write to your Representative using their contact pages on their websites. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard for us to contact some of our Representatives - emails don't often go through, letters aren't read, and we sometimes have to write individually to our Representatives using the contact pages they put up on their websites. PIJAC has done the work to give us links where needed for these contact pages for these websites so that we can make those contacts (see the attached PIJAC PDF flyer), and NAIA is making "Capwiz" available for the one-shot contact - go to the Capwiz webpage at
> Call and Fax your Representative at the numbers provided on the attached PDF PIJAC flyer.
> Be sure to contact the local office of your own Representative by phone, and if you can, make a personal visit. Our congressional representatives are now on recess, and will return to their work at the Capitol next week. Let your Representatives' local offices know NOW that you want them to KILL HR 669. If the local staff hear from enough constituents that they want a bill killed, they will let their Representatives know that their constituents hate this bill.
> 3. Distribute this email, NAIA's link, and PIJAC's PDF flyer widely to everyone you know who loves animals and wants to keep them in our lives. In particular, send it to any pet lists you are on. This bill will impact almost all non-native animals. Ask them to contact the representatives and ask them to KILL HR 669.
> You can see PIJAC's earlier alert on HR 669 here:
>
> You can see the full text of the bill here:
> 4. If you have a website or belong to a discussion list, post this Alert and the PDF attachment. Ask your friends to do the same.
> A NOTE ALL ANIMAL OWNERS, AND ESPECIALLY TO BIRD OWNERS
> Does the Pennsylvania Proposed Ban of the Nanday Conure of 2008 ring a bell for anyone?
> For those bird owners who fought so hard and so well for the Nanday in Pennsylvania in 2008 - that was just target practice.
> HR 669 IS THE ANIMAL PROHIBITIONIST NUCLEAR OPTION - STOP IT NOW.
> Get your phones, emails, and faxes working and get our troops marching again. We need every one of you to help again, and we need the help of everyone you know. It doesn't matter if they own a bird, a dog, a cat, a turtle, a hamster, a fish, a snake, a tiger, a monkey, or any other animal. We are all affected by this bill. Don't let the animal prohibitionists force their agenda on the rest of us.
> Thanks,
> Genny Wall
> Attorney at Law
> Legislative VP, AFA, NAIA
> Laurella Desborough
> Legislative Chair, ASA, NAIA

Anti-Breeder Bill Being Introduced in Maine NOW!!!!

Here is some information on this bill, before I urge you to contact law makers and task force members mentioned to KILL THIS ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL.....NOW regarding HP666 (how's that for irony) and LD 964. More information on letter templates and contacting others within the industry. Let's protect responsible breeders who do a wonderful job, and seldom make any money off of it. Responsible breeders are not the problem, nor should they be funding the failings of sub standard breeding operations. Those operations should be forced to pay for their irresponsible behavior.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/91130.html (excellent article on the problem with this bill. also note, the search and seizure on private property without a warrant. This is happening in other states, where law abiding citizens are loosing their pets under this. By the time they straighten it out, their pets have been put to sleep or have died from old age)

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov08/081115a.asp
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027515&LD=2010&Type=4&SessionID=7http://www.pijac.org/files/public/ME_HB_1545.pdf (includes state politician information)

http://www.maineanimalcoalition.org/artman/publish/article_1330.shtml (information on members of the task force)

http://www.betrbeagle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=3055 (some explanation and logging on why this bill and others are alarming to those involved with dogs or pets in Mane)

http://www.camospace.com/archive/mod_blog/id_5085/title_more-dog-bill-madness/ (more reasons why people are concerned about this bill)

http://www.downeast.com/The-Tipping-Point/October-2008/A-Dogpile-in-Senate-District-15/ (maine politics and animal welfare)

http://blogs.mainetoday.com/dogslife/001753.shtml (shows strong support from HSUS, which causes me a lot of pause. HSUS? The same one responsible for killing puppies in North Carolina. Yeah, they have dog's best interest in mind)

http://members.boardhost.com/MolosserTalk/msg/1232400111.html (oh, it's hitting New Hampshire as well!!!!)

This is an anti-breeder bill NOT an anti substandard breeding practices bill. It "fines" each regardless of the status of their operations. It may put out of business those wonderful breeders who actually aren't in it for the money, but to keep some quality in the breed and lines. But even that is not the end goal.

The end goal of organizations like HSUS, who is pushing this, is to end pet ownership period. First they have convinced people that there is no need to train your dog to a standard, Now there will be no need to have dogs bred to any healthy standard. Next step? Dogs will not be available to be pets anymore.Use this information to send your concerns to your senators, legislators, and the task force members (the ones who have not already drank the poisoned punch). Two TDF (truly dog friendly) and one HSUS member are already involved and pushing for the success of this bill.

KILL THE BILL. That's the only answer and tell the Animal Rights people to go crawl right back under their rock (as opposed to the Animal Welfare people). There are unenforced laws out there right now that can protect animals against sub standard breeding operations. This is just a testing ground for Animal Right fanatics to wedge their foot in the door, as usual.

Dear Cheryl of Doggie Bootcamp

From: "ROBIN RUBIN" View contact details To: cpanlilio@varunatv.com

Dear Cheryl,

I have read that Pat Miller has contacted you regarding Doggie
Bootcamp. I am hoping that you don't seriously listen to someone who
has publically stated that dogs not trained by her philosophy (as she
does not believe any other method works) should be dead instead of trained by "abusive methods". The members of Truly Dog Friendly include shaking penny cans and saying the word no as "abusive" or "aversive" techniques. This is her "Truly Dog Friendly" mantra, and she was very embarrassed when the following quote was made public.

"Not all pain-causing methods are prosecutable abuse, but the risk of
a dog with aggressive behaviors being abused by someone who uses pain
causing methods is high, so yes, given the choice, if it were my dog
who had an aggression problem and my only choices were to euthanize
or send it to someone who used pain-causing methods, I would choose
euthanasia for the dog's well-being. I think a gently death is
preferable to abuse." - Pat Miller

She is talking about at least two of my dogs that I have owned. Dogs that she thinks should be dead (in theory by her statement), because they were not particularly treat or toy motivated, and who made incredible pets and one dog that is working with me as my partner in business.

I personally witnessed her posting on the dog training certification
board on message number 421 and 430. In message number 7015 on Truly
Dog Friendly's message board, she once again confirms this quote AND
belief. As an owner of a couple of tough dogs, I train as gently as
I can, but saving the dog and teaching them the proper behavior and
obedience are so important to me. If you could also do this in a
responsible way on your program, this would be so enlightening for
people to see, and to know that their dogs do not need to be trained
by treats only. That training is not just the human having a "good
time", and how the food only philosophy can damage a dog beyond
repair, especially in certain personality types.

Pat Miller recommended that you use Jean Donaldson as a trainer.
First of all, she is not a trainer but a behaviorist. One that
rewards her dogs by allowing them to gratify themselves on her leg.
A Youtube video on her own channel shows this, and she feels
completely justified in showing this disturbing video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5jaA4k4SdTg

Please don't take these people seriously, they have somehow
infiltrated the dog training world (it's been a marketing ploy by benignly redefining certain dog language postive, dog-friendly, et), but they are a bunch of fanatics. Note that the balance of them are behaviorists or veterinarians. There is a push by these people to take over market share. This is what this is all over, not their "caring" for the dogs, and certainly not dogs that aren't glorified stuffed toys. As long as the project is going to be managed and beneficial to dogs,I see no reason why it should be shelved or cancelled. I could point you towards some fine trainers that should be on such a show.

Jean Donaldson is a known supporter of the animal rights movement (different than animal welfare) whose mission is to end the domestic ownership of all animals. Period. The less dogs that can be handled by humans by misdirecting them to techniques not effective for all personalities, the less dogs that can be owned and trained responsibly by people.

Robin Katherine Rubin
Mannerly Mutts
http://www.mannerlymutts.com
http://mannerlymutts.blogspot.com (blog address)
York Beach, Maine USA
207-361-4395

IACP Professional Member #1942
E-Touch Seminar Attendance Certification
Bedrock Training Method Three Day Course Attendance Certificate
Companion Dog Title completed for Jack, CD.
Two legs completed for the future Companion Dog Title of Bri.

I do not support the following organizations: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Truly Dog Friendly (TDF), No Shock Collar Coalition (NSCC) and IPDTA (International Positive Dog Trainers Association).