Science and Dog Training

Like statistics, science can either be a helpful tool in the right setting, or a tool of manipulation. Scientists and veterinarians are not God and are not ordained with skills beyond their training set by divine intervention. Some veterinarians are occasionally wrong in their diagnosis. Like a veterinarian that "diagnosed" a client's dog with "rage syndrome". Rage syndrome is not the result of predictable circumstances, but is the result of a seizure like disorder which may have a trigger (light ET) such as epilepsy. The "scientific" diagnosis was to put this dog down, because behavior is not affected by age or discomfort either, according to their now FIRED veterinarian..

So they found a trainer. I suggested that in addition to training, after observing their dog, they find another vet. Teeth infection, ear infection, and bladder infection had made Hannah decreasingly patient with her aging sister (they had lived together since puppies until their then 8 years of age). Also Kate had known hip problems. Hannah used to jump on Kate to play, and this had become painful to Kate in old age. Normally bomb proof Kate would snark at her sister, and the more "dominant" dog who had no training, Hannah sought to teach her a lesson.
Three weeks later the girls went home. Six months later with frequent contact and assignments, the girls were harmonious in the house again and the owners sent pictures with the girls out, wine in the owners hands, guests there, and smiles all around. It's been three years now, and the girls and family are living happily ever after.

Science is used as some fancy term, as if we are talking rocket science here. The meanings of facial expressions in dogs and body language is, of course useful to the trainer. You can major in the minors though, if you don't learn to take the dog into account as a whole of what they are telling you. This may be skewed if they are a different breed, worked in a different purpose, or were not socialized around other dogs. These signals can become confusing if you use this as your total understanding of behavior, which is why it's somewhat frustrating that the "academics" out there are not necessarily the best and brightest minds in dog training. In other words, they don't necessarily do anything all that worth while with the actual dogs and training. However, they think they should talk on it, rather than stick to their specialty or admit that perhaps they are out of their element when talking about the real living thing that is in front of them, and is not a theory. It would be rare to find one where you can bring a dog to work with, they are either not there in attendance or provided for you.

Science also takes credit for positive training. Positive training is both a part of "traditional training" and "balanced training". Motivation has also always been a part. The big "gift" of science has been "clicker" training. The traditional clicker was "good boy". There has been no "new aged" and "enlightened" modifications in training, only stealing, re labeling, branding, and marketing for trainers who at first sought only to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. This has later become a very ugly trend that is now pushing not only the ban of equipment, the ban of breeds, the euthanasia of dogs with very easily fixed behavior problems, and the push for training to now only be "prescribed" by phds. In other words; veterinarians, biologists, or behaviorists only will be able to tell you how to train your dog.

We could talk about Skinner vs Pavlov. Operant conditioning vs Classical conditioning dog training 101. It's not terribly complicated science as science goes. You can add something to increase behavior. You can withdraw something to increase behavior. You can add something to decrease behavior. You can withdraw something to decrease behavior. These are the basics of a training plan. 1) Positive Reinforcement 2) Negative Reinforcement 3) Positive Punishment and 4) Negative Punishment. Some trainers wish to train primarily or only (and this is a challenge) with Positive Reinforcement or one quadrant of learning. Which is fine, right up until the point that you need to debase others in order to justify that decision.

In the meantime, newbie trainers can get sucked into the void and drink the Koolaide early on for the cult like sect. Luckily, most people that e-mail me with questions on who to see and where to go for seminars, are already aware of what is out there. They also have limited funds to spend on their education. If they want to find the animal rights activists and purely positive politic dog trainer fanatics, they only need go as far as their computer. That is pretty easy to do. By the time they realize they are not seeing what they want to, results by any method, they start looking around and wondering where the trainers are that produce results. Well the answer is, unfortunately, most of them do not live in New England. They live in Maryland, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and due to the cult like climate here, rarely bother to come up this way. Even the closed minded cult like trainers neither live around here or come here that often.

How did it get like this? Money. There is lots of money to be made if you are good at branding something. Petco and Petsmart has figured this out. All in one shopping includes pet food, toys, leashes, collars, e-collars (they sell but don't agree with???), metal training collars, veterinarian services, and grooming. Tufts veterinarian behaviorists have figured out ways to get trainers to refer to them, and not follow up on what happened because they "know better" and their is (sound of heavenly music) science involved. There are also drugs involved. Vets are so fed up with trying to explain to some that they have a perfectly normal dog, prescriptions are written out for problems such as crate training or separation anxiety or simply being a dog that is not being exercised enough. Some of these are worked on very "scientifically" by the use of fax only evaluation, rather than go through the necessity of actually seeing the dog or what is going on.

And how easy is it to brand "fun"? It's not that traditional training isn't or can't be positive and fun, it's that a fanatical group figured out how to pull language away to put themselves up as the "new age" authority, simply by playing with marketing. The trainers who were simply training dogs were not concerned THEN with this trend. However, it has morphed now into an all out attack against dogs basically.

Am I saying all positive trainers are evil or incredibly naive? No, but I am saying that I can spot nonsense when I read and see it from the sect of cult like fanatics. Like a trainer that says she respects traditional trainers, and then writes that she does positive reinforcement only because when "you know better you do better." (k-9solutionsdogtraininginc.blogspot.com) Or when Truly Dog Friendly claims not be an organization or one that bans tools, when all you have to do is see the list of members and the articles that they promote banning tools. That if you have a niche market or talent, you normally don't need to convince people to follow your way only be debasing other methods or trying to ban training tools. There are clicker trainers or rewards based trainers out there that do not have a need to do this. I will see them, and not the ones that align themselves with such fanatical groups as Truly Dog Friendly or the No Shock Collar Coalition (http://www.trulydogfriendly.com/blog/?page_id=2 scroll down).

Professional organizations such as APDT, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, like the money and enthusiasm of the "fun" way to train as well. However, they don't so much like loosing results orientated dog trainers that may be using equipment the cult like sect would like to ban. Their "educational" contribution to this in the past has been to squelch all open communication about the election process, the tools in question, yet try to appease each side. This finally came to a head when Truly Dog Friendly organization (though they claim not to be) tried to seed their members through campaigning outside of APDT into the BOD. In the meantime, the training discussions in the APDT could only therefore be at the very basic levels of dog training and nothing else. IACP, International Association of Canine Professionals, had spun off from them previously to be open to all methods and members unless they were actively seeking to promote the banning of tools.

The Magic Wand Or The Affect of Extremist Politics in Dog Training

Let me ask you a question, what does dog training mean to you or your dog training clients? To some it means tricks that might distract a dog out of a situation short term. To some it means no work. When they call a trainer, what they are really asking for is the "magic wand" solution.   That is a solution that does not require any inconvenience, time, patience, or practice on their part.



Magic wands come in all sizes and shapes, and sometimes are just verbal tips. This is very frustrating to a dog trainer, because our definition of dog training is different. Dog training focuses on the long term relationship, and long term communication between owner and dog. This does not come in a shake can, a spray bottle, an electronic collar, a metal training collar, a prong collar, a way of speaking loudly, an alpha roll, treats being given constantly, or the clicker. That being said, that does not mean these are not all tools used in DOG TRAINING. However, dog training is a bit more than that. A vast majority of the general public really does not get it. They will say things like "my dog already sits" or "my dog comes when called" but there's always that except. Sometimes it's "except when they like to go for a dip in a lake". Sometimes it's "except when they are lunging and growling at another dog". If these are things you would like to fix, I do have a magic wand to sell you, but it won't do the job for you. Hence, since I am an ethical trainer, I will not sell you my magic wand.



There are trainers that will. If that is what you seek, I can provide the names and numbers of those trainers for you......gladly. I want to work with owners that are seeking a long term and permanent solution to the problem they are having. I want owners that want to work with and enjoy their dog as they build onto that relationship. I do not have time for owners that are setting themselves up to fail from the get go, and won't even try and grasp what is being told to them. I can't speak over some one for an hour long lesson, and there isn't enough money that I can charge that would make me want to do that. People who do not follow thru on training may put me and other dogs in danger. The last thing I want is for them to say they trained with me!!! Now if a training plan needs to be tweaked or changed, I am hip to that, and I look for those opportunities as no two dogs are the same.



The previous statement is also why I never give a training plan or attempt to train or diagnose a problem over the phone. You really need to meet the dog, and may not get a full picture of the dog for a few weeks. If I am doing hour weekly coaching sessions, it may be very hard to get a full picture of the dog, but the dog is right in front of me while the owners are describing their difficulties. Trainers who diagnose problems over the phone, and have not met the dog are being unethical IMO. I would rather they do that, than me.



Because training takes time, I do not offer one or two sessions. Packages may be purchased six at a time for private training lessons (understanding that basic training is usually done in 12 weeks), or three weeks at a time for Board & Train packages. If I want to see if the dog has something beyond what I am capable of dealing with, I offer free consultation at my facility or the client's home depending on the problem (and usually with directions for keep everyone safe). Then I can give out trainers names that may be able to help with the problem, but also do not deal in the "magic wand" business.


Sadly, much dog training has been downgraded by the reluctance to teach or require your dog to do anything. This has caused the "easy fix" ideas. You know, if they work, hey great!!! Most times that people are calling me, is because the "easy fixes" have not worked. I am including tools that I use as "easy fixes" when used incorrectly by people. The problem is the extremist (one minded one thing fixes all) trainers jump on this as proof that tools (alone) make dogs aggressive or unreliable, not realizing it's the lack of TRAINING, patience, and time that can cause these results. This is the reason that I do not sell tools to people who are not training with me. In fact, the determination to sell them one or not comes only after they have shown that they can use the training (with time, patience and consistency) correctly, and have TRAINED their dogs beyond just a trick performance that can only happen in the privacy of a kitchen without guests.  With proper training, reading of the dog, appropriate tools for owner and dog, these types of things just do not generally happen. But are their guaranteed ways to make this happen? You betcha. Please do seek a professional for training purposes, and not so they sell you a "magic wand". Groups like "Truly Dog Friendly" (TDF), Humane Society of The United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are setting up the public to believe there is less to dog training (or no dog training required or no dogs required) than there is, and that is a dangerous message. It can have horrible consequences for both dogs and their owners.



If you are serious about training your dog in the York Beach Maine area, please call dog trainer, Robin Rubin at 207-361-4395. All other inquiries (and training inquiries also) can be e-mailed to mannerly_mutt@yahoo.com. Mannerly Mutts is committed to our client's success, and the successful development of a dog and owner bond.

Science in Dog Training

Like statistics, science can either be a helpful tool in the right setting, or a tool of manipulation. Scientists and veterinarians are not God and are not ordained with skills beyond their training set by divine intervention. Some veterinarians are occasionally wrong in their diagnosis. Like a veterinarian that "diagnosed" a client's dog with "rage syndrome". Rage syndrome is not the result of predictable circumstances, but is the result of a seizure like disorder which may have a trigger (light, being startled, smells, ET) such as epilepsy. The "scientific" diagnosis was to put this dog down, because behavior is not affected by age or discomfort either, according to their now FIRED veterinarian.


So they found Mannerly Mutts and our Residency Program. I suggested that in addition to training, after observing their dog, they find another vet, who ended up to be Kindred Vets in Orrington Maine. Now diagnosed, it was known that teeth infection, ear infection, and bladder infection had made Hannah decreasingly patient with her aging sister (they had lived together since puppies until their then 8 years of age). Also Kate had known hip problems. Hannah used to jump on Kate to play, and this had become painful to Kate in old age. Normally bomb proof Kate would snark at her sister, and the more "dominant" (according to her owners, who thought they should let her do whatever she wanted henceforth) dog who had no training, Hannah sought to teach her a lesson.


Three weeks later the girls went home. Six Months later with frequent contact and assignments (we changed up through training old ways that they dealt with each other), the girls were harmonious in the house again and the owners sent pictures with the girls out, wine in the owners hands, guests there, and smiles all around. It's been three years now, and the girls and family are living happily ever after.  Although, at a ripe old age, Katie died just a few weeks ago.  

Science is used as some fancy term, as if we are talking rocket science here. The meanings of facial expressions in dogs and body language is, of course useful to the trainer. You can major in the minors though, if you don't learn to take the dog into account as a whole of what they are telling you. This may be skewed if they are a different breed, worked in a different purpose, or were not socialized around other dogs. These signals can become confusing if you use this as your total understanding of behavior, which is why it's somewhat frustrating that the "academics" out there are not necessarily the best and brightest minds in dog training. In other words, they don't necessarily do anything all that worth while with the actual dogs and training. However, they think they should talk on it, rather than stick to their specialty or admit that perhaps they are out of their element when talking about the real living thing that is in front of them, and is not a theory. It would be rare to find one where you can bring a dog to work with, they are either not there in attendance or provided for you.
Science also takes credit for positive training. Positive training is both a part of "traditional training" and "balanced training". Motivation has also always been a part. The big "gift" of science has been "clicker" training. The traditional clicker was "good boy". There has been no "new aged" and "enlightened" modifications in training, only stealing, re labeling, branding, and marketing for trainers who at first sought only to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. This has later become a very ugly trend that is now pushing not only the ban of equipment, the ban of breeds, the euthanasia of dogs with very easily fixed behavior problems, and the push for training to now only be "prescribed" by PhD. In other words; in the future the goal is that veterinarians, biologists, or behaviorists only will be able to tell you how to train your dog.

We could talk about Skinner vs Pavlov. Operant conditioning vs Classical conditioning dog training 101. It's not terribly complicated science as science goes. You can add something to increase behavior. You can withdraw something to increase behavior. You can add something to decrease behavior. You can withdraw something to decrease behavior. These are the basics of a training plan. 1) Positive Reinforcement 2) Negative Reinforcement 3) Positive Punishment and 4) Negative Punishment. Some trainers wish to train primarily or only (and this is a challenge) with Positive Reinforcement or one quadrant of learning. Which is fine, right up until the point that you need to debase others in order to justify that decision.

In the meantime, newbie trainers can get sucked into the void and drink the Koolaide early on for the cult like sect. Luckily, most people that e-mail me with questions on who to see and where to go for seminars, are already aware of what is out there. They also have limited funds to spend on their education. If they want to find the animal rights activists and purely positive politic dog trainer fanatics, they only need go as far as their computer. That is pretty easy to do. By the time they realize they are not seeing what they want to, results by any method, they start looking around and wondering where the trainers are that produce results. Well the answer is, unfortunately, most of them do not live in New England. They live in Maryland, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and due to the cult like climate here, rarely bother to come up this way. Even the closed minded cult like trainers neither live around here or come here that often.

How did it get like this? Money. There is lots of money to be made if you are good at branding something. Petco and Petsmart has figured this out. All in one shopping includes pet food, toys, leashes, collars, e-collars (they sell but don't agree with???), metal training collars, veterinarian services, and grooming. Tufts veterinarian behaviorists have figured out ways to get trainers to refer to them, and not follow up on what happened because they "know better" and their is (sound of heavenly music) science involved. There are also drugs involved. Vets are so fed up with trying to explain to some that they have a perfectly normal dog, prescriptions are written out for problems such as crate training or separation anxiety or simply being a dog that is not being exercised enough. Some of these are worked on very "scientifically" by the use of fax only evaluation, rather than go through the necessity of actually seeing the dog or what is going on.

And how easy is it to brand "fun"? It's not that traditional training isn't or can't be positive and fun, it's that a fanatical group figured out how to pull language away to put themselves up as the "new age" authority, simply by playing with marketing. The trainers who were simply training dogs were not concerned THEN with this trend. However, it has morphed now into an all out attack against dogs basically.

Am I saying all positive trainers are evil or incredibly naive? No, but I am saying that I can spot nonsense when I read and see it from the sect of cult like fanatics. Like a trainer that says she respects traditional trainers, and then writes that she does positive reinforcement only because when "you know better you do better." Or when Truly Dog Friendly claims not be an organization or one that bans tools, when all you have to do is see the list of members and the articles that they promote banning tools. That if you have a niche market or talent, you normally don't need to convince people to follow your way only be debasing other methods or trying to ban training tools. There are clicker trainers or rewards based trainers out there that do not have a need to do this. I will see them, and not the ones that align themselves with such fanatical groups as Truly Dog Friendly or the No Shock Collar Coalition (http://www.trulydogfriendly.com/blog/?page_id=2 scroll down).

Professional organizations such as APDT, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, like the money and enthusiasm of the "fun" way to train as well. However, they don't so much like loosing results orientated dog trainers that may be using equipment the cult like sect would like to ban. Their "educational" contribution to this in the past has been to squelch all open communication about the election process, the tools in question, yet try to appease each side. This finally came to a head when Truly Dog Friendly organization (though they claim not to be) tried to seed their members through campaigning outside of APDT into the BOD. In the meantime, the training discussions in the APDT could only therefore be at the very basic levels of dog training and nothing else. IACP, International Association of Canine Professionals, had spun off from them previously to be open to all methods and members unless they were actively seeking to promote the banning of tools.

This has been a bit of a rewriting and re-editing of an older blog. Later on, I found the following article by chance on conflicts of interest in veterinary medicine.

Conflicts of Interest in Veterinary Medicine
 
Brought to you by:   Maine and New Hampshire Dog Trainer
Mannerly Mutts Dog Training Blog
E-Mail Mannerly Mutts With Questions

APDT's Gotta Have a Gimmick---See Their Newest One C.L.A.S.S

The Association of Pet Dog Training has, in my opinion, encouraged the divide between dog trainers and dog training.   Click on the APDT topic to see my other articles and discussions on this.  They are not an honest professional organization as they limit what topics can be discussed in dog training, engage in double speak, yet still try to keep their market share by pandering to their "targeted market".   APDT is all about marketing and dollars, and not, in my opinion, about dog training, dog owners, or dogs.  I could go on and on about all the things they have tried to brand, and the language that they have attempted to redefine.   I could expand on how they like to manipulate the naive public with these things.   Do some research on this organization, it's founders, and it's history and you will find out for yourself.

When I saw the tweet blip by yesterday, I mistakenly thought that they may have thrown out their multiple choice exam that many pass easily without even studying for one that might measure dog training based on measurable standards, and thus the ability of the dog trainer.  How naive do I remain?  I should have known better.

Let me start this by saying there exists numerous tests of a dog's behavior in real life situations.  AKC's (American Kennel Club) Canine Good Citizen (CGC), Obedience Trials from Companion Dog to Working Dog (CD and Up), Puppy STAR Program, American Temperament Test Society (ATTS), and the UKC's (United Kennel Club's) similar obedience venues.  AKC even dumbed down obedience trials to what they call "rally".

So why does APDT now need to be promoting their self proclaimed "C.L.A.S.S".  It's all about furthering their agenda, which in my opinion IS NOT about promoting positive training (which we all do).  It's about promoting their illusionary niche market, and dividing dog trainers even further apart.  If they simply wanted people to know that you can positively train a dog (let's just pretend every dog has the same history here, temperament, and had a perfect upbringing with no problems) to a standard, they would simply show up at many of the trials and tests available in their area and steal the show.  Their members would stop talking about how "Rally" is more like real life because you can say a command a thousand times and treat your dog.   Oh, yeah, APDT runs their own Rally trials as well, which are much more super difficult because you need your dog to do so many more things.   Reliability in the world with one command is not stressed at all, because that is not so important.

I am not saying that APDT members don't go to trials, I am saying that their motivation is not to promote training to a standard.   Their promotion is their niche market or the illusion of purely positive.   To some, purely positive would include no leash, no collar because that is restrictive to a dog.  I find training a dog to be off leash reliable is a lot more doable when you start with a leash and a collar.  In fact, I have many clients come to me because they fell for the "puppies follow you anywhere, you don't need a leash and collar".   Yeah, that is until puppy becomes an adolescent and realizes that while you are very nice, there are a lot of interesting things around.   Also treats and balls will not station an untrained dog when a larger reward or distraction is around.

You need to fall for their gimmick.   I think the thing that really toasted my butt was when I read this article.  In the very first paragraph, they imply that the C.L.A.S.S. designation is going to instantly give your dog access and rights where they were not allowed previously!   Unless they have had hotels and other businesses sign off on this, there is no certificate that gives you this right.   I will tell you though, I have gotten access in areas with my dogs because the training shows while I am there.   If your training does not show, you can give a business a golden embossed certificate, and it will mean absolutely nothing to the business if they are smart.   I further worry that people will think that their dogs have the rights of service dogs by the way APDT is promoting this.

I am convinced as usual, that the Association of Pet Dog Trainers is a damaging and dangerous organization to dog owners, dogs, and dog trainers who care about their skill and about their clients' dogs.

http://www.mannerlymutts.com
http://mannerlymutts.blogspot.com

APDT's Forumla/Certification in Professional Canine Organizations (Robert Rubin)

Pass a multiple choice test, start seminars (not too choosey and will give credit), write articles, then write a book. It's a time tested formula, and the reason that many great dog trainers have left the APDT for something a bit more real and ethical.

When my wife started as a trainer, she felt this would be a non-political career LOL. Early on, it was realized that dog training is a career in marketing and politics. I give APDT kudos for coming through with a great marketing strategy, and a way to double speak while maintaining a goal and extremism consistently.

When someone who blogs that they don't understand how dog training or didn't understand how dog training is part of the behavior modification puzzle, and they have give out seminars approved for APDT CEU's, that tells you the quality of those given the nod by the APDT. Who on one hand rails about tools and certain training methods as aversive, but then suddenly understands what trainers who use the tools supposedly don't----that training is the ability to decrease either reward or correction in the ability to perform a command with distance, duration, and distraction.

No kidding? Why I never realized that....sigh. It's one thing to trap one's own dog into a state of fear. It's another to talk "professionally" and tell others that methods won't work for them. In that light, we will be thanking this particularly trainer for their contributions to Mannerly Mutts favorite charities in a few months. It's frightening however how this very misunderstood information has been doled out to others under the umbrella of certification, especially of this organization, just my honest opinion here.

Someday it is our hope that results in standardized performance tests will be required to be a licensed dog trainer. Hopefully the organizations that we value (IACP and NADOI) will also support such legislation when the day comes. My wife will be submitting her case study certification soon to the IACP, and agrees it has only been her fault that it has not been done. However, we value the time and referrals that the IACP requires before certification can even be taken. A panel of judges scores not the multiple choice questions, but the results of the case studies documented in both material presented to the clients, but also what the actual clients have to say:) These are exciting times coming up.

Maine and New Hampshire Dog Trainers
Mannerly Mutts Blog

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

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.

Dogs Competing for Their Lives/Owners Competing for Their Rights

In the dog training world, legislation may be coming soon to regulate the dog training profession. As with all legislation, this is something that I could both welcome or be concerned about. I would welcome it if it did so to secure professional conduct and results. I do not welcome it, if it comes just to ban tools or methods. I also do not welcome it if it is to bring training to be prescribed by veterinarians who know nothing about training dogs. I also don't want to see this trend promote or degenerate the expected training performance of the professional dog trainer (as a result of some current trends in dog training today).

There are those in the dog profession, who feel that a measurable test of their skill in training a dog is useless or unnecessary. I disagree strongly, especially when reviewing what is going on with our world and the world of pet ownership today. One way professional dog trainers keep up on their skills is to compete in measurable tests of their training skills. I want this to become a requirement for all professional dog trainers in the future in order to keep our business and profession as successful as it can be. Success being measured in not only the ability of dogs to keep their homes or acquire their homes, but also in the ability of owner's to keep their rights of enjoyment of their dogs AND dogs to keep their rights to be able to exercise unencumbered (but not untrained).

My Concerns: It has been in the best interests of the Veterinarian community to secure market share by taking over the industry of dog training as well. They have done this by emphasizing scientific and behavioral studies in dog training, rather than also (or at all) focusing on skill in dog training. Every dog trainer should be aware of the theories, methodologies, and their history. However, being able to actually train a dog to a measurable standard (there are tests out there put on by the UKC and AKC) is equally important. These groups largely believe that it should not be required for a dog trainer to show any measurable skill in training a dog. They say things like "it's unimportant, people just want companion dogs" or "why spend all this time on a behaviorally challenged dogs when there are all these other "nice" dogs out there. (article to follow on some future date)



People like Ian Dunbar, of Dogstardaily.com, has been one veterinarian that did not sticking to his introduction of puppy classes and the correct upbringing for a dog. Although having earned nothing beyond a Companion Dog title on his own dog, he considers himself the authority figure on dog training at advanced levels and in adult dogs that have behavioral problems. In my opinion, this has been a great marketing scheme for him and others, which is motivated primarily by greed not by accomplishment or concern for dog and owner welfare. His stay on the Association of Pet Dog Trainers created a huge rift in the dog community, and offshoot organizations such as Truly Dog Friendly and the No Shock Collar Coalition. Names that sound innocent enough until you realize the misrepresentations and lack of knowledge of the dog training tools in question by these very groups. These groups and Dogstardaily seek to suppress and misrepresent the truth, which is apparent in that they do not allow open discussion unless it directly agrees with their views. For instance, you can not discuss how the Koehler Method of Dog Training ACTUALLY works, you can only discuss the bad parts of it, inaccurate or not. You can not explain the modern technology of e-collars that now offer various levels that include very gentle and almost imperceptible levels. You can not talk about how these are not used mostly as aversive or coercive, but as a gentler piece of equipment than the training collars with the additional benefit of better timing and off leash control. You can not discuss these things with these groups unless you misrepresent or present ONLY the cons to this group of "trainers".



NOTE: The Koehler Method of Dog Training is a progressive training program that relies on the owners putting the time and effort in to train their dogs. The problems usually come about when people do not follow the instructions in the book, go to fast, and become frustrated. Becoming frustrated and too harsh to dogs IS NOT ANY PART of the Koehler Method of Dog Training, in my opinion.



It's the results of these marketing tactics that cause misinformation to leak out to your average dog owner, that concern me most. Also the trend of some Veterinarians, such as Tuft's own Dr Dodman, who have in the past gone for medicating a dog rather than training a dog. Some of this has reported to have changed at Tufts, but I have had talked personally with at least two owners who did not find their answer in a pill as prescribed. Additionally, there was my own experience before I became a dog trainer, where I was expected to fax in the problem to Dr Dodman for my faxed back medical analysis. I am glad I was intelligent enough not to do that. Not all dog owners are aware of the pitfalls of these practices and the lasting harm that can be done.



This redirecting of the training industries to professionals who do not regularly train dogs to any standard AND do not recognize their own limitations, has increased the lack of knowledge that average people have of dogs and how they learn, in my opinion. Dogs that are studied in laboratory settings are not in real life situations. Theories, while good to know and contemplate, do not account for the flesh and blood living right in front of you. Unfortunately this has caused more and more people to be unaware of how to train and care for a dog. Instead, they expect a dog to be more and more like a stuffed animal, without the will to exercise, explore, and be an active living being.



My Hope: If there is legislation coming to regulate the dog industry, it takes an unexpected and welcome turn. One, it should require all dog trainers to demonstrate, through testing to a standard, their ability to (at the very least) train their own dog to this standard. I think further, that they should be able to train a client and the client's dog to take the test as well.



A multiple choice test of other skills and understanding of methodologies and science can also be given, but the tests for certification as a dog trainer through state or federal law need to include proof of skills. There are organizations out there that do give these sort of tests through Video and live demonstrated ability, I believe they should be included in the legislative plan. The NADOI and IACP both give certifications based on demonstrations of skill. IACP is in the process of revising their video taped test to be taken by dog trainers that will be titled as professional. The NADOI already requires uncut video tape of the demonstration of a trainer's abilities. There is no sane reason, in my opinion, why a professional dog trainer should not be required to submit proof of their actual ability to train. There should be NO EXCUSE as to someone in the field claiming that this is not necessary. If you are a professional dog trainer, you should be able to train a dog, at minimum, in basic obedience in a measurable way.

Behavior modification needs to be based on client satisfaction ratio, I think. It's relative to what the dog was, what the client expected, and is there improvement in both the lives of the dog and the clients. A multiple choice test in behavior theory will not flush out those results, although it may be useful just to be sure the dog professional is aware of these. However, a multiple test on theory is just a memorization exercise. Many times a dog of a different upbringing may give signals that veer from the path of theory to the path of reality.

What is the harm in not expecting professional dog trainers to be able to take a measurable real time test of their skills?

Here are just a few examples of legislation that is currently overtaking the United States by storm, due to poor or sloppy or no training?

Breed Specific Legislation
Limits of Numbers of Dogs that Can Be Owned
Dogs Banned from Public Areas
Leash Laws that Do Not Allow for Any Off Leash Places Outside the House

If professional trainers do not have the skills to train a dog, how will owners be able to train their dogs? Who will they learn from? Distaste for dogs in the non-dog owning public will grow, and these laws will continue to infringe on the rights of the responsible dog owning public.

Here are some other organizations unconcerned about the quality of training a dog and owner may be taught, in my own opinion:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (if you don't know their agenda, you should educate yourself)
Humane Society of the United States (Ditto)
Truly Dog Friendly (wants to direct methods and tools to be used, but does not place any emphasis or reliable training or the rewards of reliable training to both family and dog)
Dogstardaily.com (Ditto, and has many members from the Veterinarian community who have not trained dogs to any standard, as well as the main portion of their trainers that do not believe in training to any standard, of either their own or their clients' dogs)

JUDGE ME BASED ON MY CLIENT'S PERFORMANCE?

I just can't help myself today. I was reading one of the Dogstardaily's blogger's (I don't know yet if this particular post is on Dogstardaily.com) dog training blogs. In the this post, she complains about dog trainers being required to actually teach obedience skills in a measurable forum, and asks instead to be judged on her and her client's performance.

Not so long ago she proudly posted the following pictures and videos of her client's GRADUATION in a completely quiet gym at a school. No other dogs around, people, nothing. It should be a pretty stunning video of the end of a client's sessions, right? I'll let you decide.

http://k-9solutionsdogtraininginc.blogspot.com/2008/10/danno-graduates.html

Now if I had to judge a trainer based on this FINISHED product, I am not so impressed. Also a lot of trainers feel, as this one did, that if only they were interested in the sport, of course their dog could do it LOL. It's maddening that some people can't see their limits, or that they have limits. I readily admit that I have mine, and therefore, have referrals if necessary. Not having done this yet, they don't understand how the precision and handling help their client. For instance, this trainer could have let their client know that shoulders straight and walking briskly forward brings the dog forward. They would also understand that they lost the leash too soon, or did not properly train a heel position. Behind the owner and lagging is not heel position. I could tell the owner wanted the dog in heel, that's why they angled back to look. If they were doing that with an on leash heel, it will tend to drive the dog backwards not forwards just by body language.

On another trainer's site, here are some videos that show the BEGINNINGS (I couldn't find it, but there was one of his whole class working in a parking lot or something off an airport!!!) of another's training. I don't know this person personally, but I know impressive training when I see it. I also know happy dogs when I see them.

These are two extremes of trainers clearly. However, I think it's fairly important to know how to yourself, and show your clients how to train their dogs for distracting situations. In an empty gymnasium (and if you are showing something you are proud of) this should be a no brainer. If a trainer can't do this for you, and push you to your very best for the partnership and enhanced life of you and your dog, then you are wasting your money.

A trainer that had done the work of competing, might also notice how the precision and timing help and improve the behavior modification as well. And socializing, and performance, and relationships.....

Friday Blog Fishing

This is my rant for the day, after reading my "favorite" social networking site DogStarDaily.com, and managing not to bash my head against my desk into sweet oblivion. This has been building up for awhile, so these may not refer to recent postings.

Actually, DogStarDaily.com has surprisingly had quite a few posts on the fact that some of the rabid advocates of the "middle of the road" spin off of the "truly dog friendly" phenomenon use aversives.

(TRANSLATION: for most of my audience who doesn't know the politics of dog training. These people pretend to not be extremists while blocking comments, limiting posts, and not allowing answers from their blogger to information the blogger posted about. If you need to hide and control it, there is something there to hide folks!!)

No not aversives, you say (which may include the word no, body molding, or a leash correction)!! Yes, those that have been preaching to the choir, can not honestly say that they don't use aversives. Apparently they just like to in secret, so they can demean others who use methods that largely aren't aversive and compete with them in the market. Or that's my opinion anyway.

In the spirit of venting and serving up my Friday blog fishing in a different way, I am listing these as "there must be something wrong with me, as I don't do the following":

I don't have a "heart dog" as some trainers claim to. All my dogs and pets have been or are my heart dogs or pets. It's like saying you have a favorite child. Huh, that's positively dog freindly? Luckily dogs don't need therapy LOL. Or maybe they do and just can't ask for it!!

I don't accept payment for services before meeting with or talking to the client.

I don't ever wish that I did not have dogs, didn't have children, or wasn't doing what I currently do right now. I'm thinking some of that training some people don't like too much to do, or do well might help this situation.

Being bitten is not all in a days work. I have been bitten once, and deflected on once since starting. Both my fault, of course.

I am unable to train a dog fully around all distractions in two weeks. (It's the same blog as above, sigh)

If I have to hold up a cookie to get a command performance, then I have not trained the command. (It's the same blog as above) heavy sigh

I don't serve dogs or allow them to manipulate everything around them. (I do what is in their best interests to protect them and their freedoms. We have a partnership and both have duties to perform in that partnership.) This has more to do with what makes the human feel good, not in the best interests of the dog and family.

Dogs will obey commands, even when I don't have a treat or toy in my hand (unlike in this photo) once they are trained. A trained dog also does not need corrections. I don't consider a dog trained if I can only get them to perform with treats or corrections.

I am not afraid to give straight answers to questions, not conflicting answers or the run around. Still am very unclear as to what titles or designations her dogs may or may not have beyond CGC, TDI, or Rally titles LOL. And if you look on her blog bio or her website, you will be equally as mystified.

Then try and figure out, does this trainer use aversives or does she not? Hmmm, different answer everywhere you go. Then she says one should "show not tell". Sure saw this trainer doing a lot of telling on the Greatest American Dog, though sadly this trainer did not win. In fact lost to a dog owner. Seems she can't honestly say she doesn't do this just to live with her dogs, she just doesn't want anyone to know this:) Or heaven forbid, correctly try techniques at home that aren't even aversive.

I don't misrepresent training methods that I have supposedly learned by linking them to articles that inappropriately depict them. In my opinion, a person that does this hasn't learned very much about the method, as claimed in the blog. The article even talks about negative reinforcement correctly LOL. Negative simple means to take away, and reinforcement means to increase. It does not need to be aversive or a yummy treat, for the love of DOG. Koelher relies on you showing a dog gently and patiently with many repetitions. Those that don't do their homework and don't understand the method, may do harm to their dog as this blogger seems to be admitting she has.

I don't have promotional pictures of my dogs where they look afraid. Also can be found by scrolling down here.

I have a real problem with allowing dogs to hump other dogs. I would certaintly not leave them at a daycare that allowed this.

I don't put people down or demean them or villify them if they want a well trained dog. I understand that most people want the best in safety and freedom for their dogs, and that's why they do the best obedience training that they can.

I really feel for any of the general public that would give this social website with blogs from such "experts" any credence, whatsoever. The shame is there are some knowledgeable dog trainers on there somewhere, who very infrequently post. The main posters are people with minimal experience dog training, or who won't answer a straight question about their experiences dog training. IMO, this is all about money. Note that the bloggers have their products advertised on this site. Ian Dunbar's products are prominently displayed as well. He is notably well known for creating a huge divide in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, before trying to play both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, the reason he is doing this is not for the dogs, but soley IMO for his own profit. This couple of Ian and Kelly Dunbar can jaunt off to here and there all they want, but IMO they are hurting dogs and the profession of dog training in seeking to dominate the market.

Just my humble opinion of course.

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).

Written Parody of Pat Miller's Letter to Animal Planet Re Proposed Doggie Boot Camp Show

I can't copy Pat Miller's actual letter, which has recently been shared to me, that was sent off to a Cheryl at Varuna TV, cpanlilio@varunatv.com, for the new show called "Doggie Bootcamp". (the following is a parody of the letter that was shared with me)

Hey Cheryl,

I have concerns over the program in the works called Doggie Bootcamp show being considered for Animal Planet.

The more modern and scientific approach to dog training, which recognizes the very well researched fact that dogs like to eat, and the facial expressions of dogs, and guarantees that the owner feels good about themselves, of course and unless the training in this philosphy does not work and the dog needs to die due to not adhering to this philosophy. We do not need another "Dog Whisperer" even though the public is literally crying out for solutions that make sense, and may train their short term problem dogs into lovely companions. This is something the dog training world simply does not need.

Since people are too stupid to learn to use anything but treats and love, why not offer a program that goes over the same old thing. After all, their is always plan B, euthanansia, which is completely dog friendly when treats don't work.

You may remember my now infamous quote, ""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 You can find this posted on the Canine Professional Certification Board by my own hand in Yahoo groups in messages 421 and 430. I also reiterated what I said yet again on the Truly Dog Friendly board on message 7015 (that is unless someone finally deleted them). If the dogs on your program can not respond to treats and love only, then death is the most friendly choice for the dogs. Even a firm no can be unfriendly in my book. Best not to put a dog through any real kind of training program.

And forget these pesky trainers for goodness sake! You should recomend my philosophy for the owners to try at home, and if they get hurt because that personality does not respond to people who can not effectively and efficiently teach the dog commands, then death would be the next and most logical (and dog-friendly) step. Dog trainers do not understand the infinate complexity at throwing food at a situation. Or pretending to be a tree for months, perhaps years on end, so that they can take a walk with the dog. Trainers think freedom and exercise is fun for a dog, and helps even better than food with behavioral problems. Dogs such as this, that require work or exercise are better off dead. That way, people without a responsible and caring work ethic towards their dogs can be happy! It's not about the dog, it's about the people being able to have fur kids, that is as long as the fur kids conform to their ideals of what a stuffed dog that does no wrong should be. Course these poor people can't have real kids, as that would require discipline and teaching, as well as spending a heck of a lot of time with them, so they wouldn't become a mess. Society frowns, after all, on crating and leashing up your children.

I strongly suggest that you contact people such as Jean Donaldson who are high profile but not necessarily accomplished in dog training, and consider themselves behaviorists though they would like a piece of the training pie (by creating mass hysteria in an easily manipulated public sector), who allows her dogs the reward of sexual gratification on her leg. This is the example that I would enjoy your show showing to the general public. Any true dog lover would willingly provide this outlet for their dog. By redefining what reward can really be, you will be doing the public a true service.



Yours Truly and Woofs and Wags,

P. of Truly Dead Dogs

Review of DogStarDaily.com

Recently an online site created by the Dunbar family (Dr Ian Dunbar) was brought to my attention. It was brought to my attention in the same thread that compared traditional dog training to "war dog training", which I found a concerning phrase. Now, as far as I know, The Monks of New Skete did not specialize or perhaps even deal in the training of "war dogs". Not that I even know what that statement could mean. I believe the poster may have been trying to say working dogs. Dogs in the military have all sorts of jobs that do not require "aggression" or a "hard dog nature" as implied. However, I found this "war dog" idea as a pretty standard thread of DogStarDaily.com. I should disclose that I am not an actual fan of The Monks of New Skete, at least how their older manual existed.

Bill Koehler, while having been in the military, became famous due to a series of training books aimed at group lessons for pet dogs (through the AKC obedience tests that were out there) , tracking dogs, and hunting dogs. While they may not be heavy on the treats, they are all about praise and partnership with the appropriate tools. In fact, before going to Margot Wood's seminar on her Bedrock Training Method which is an offshoot of what she learned on her own and from Bill Koehler, the metal training collar (also known as the choke collar) was not my tool of choice at all. Seeing it in this method, I realized how easily it was applied to train a dog to be on no equipment at all, and not with "heavy handed" corrections. It was a huge part of accomplishing a successful goal this year of getting Jack his Companion Dog title. Mr Koehler was very well known in the movie and commercial side of dog training as well. In his books, I don't see methods talked about that advocate the breaking down of a dog so the "stronger rise and the weaker fail".

That being said, are there some parts of his book that I don't use? Yes, some of the suggestions that are separate from the methods of dealing with "real hoods", I don't use. First of all some of the "real hoods" are probably dogs that don't belong in your average dog owners home. I say this having worked with dogs that have or are capable of biting a human or animal. I say this also having rehabbed them from wanting to do this as any sort of common occurrence. So I am not saying that dogs can not be rehabbed, especially from behavioral problems that have cropped up due to misunderstanding the needs of their dog for direction, leadership, and discipline (remember a time out in a crate can be discipline, and saying no can be discipline, as can restraint by leash and collar).

Second of all, I have never met a dog with a housebreaking or barking issue that wasn't fairly easily solved with regular old training or medical attention. 95% of his books, however, I do use. I see no reason for throwing out a perfectly extraordinary way of training my dogs for a couple of items that I have never seen fit to use with a dog and aren't even part of the "method". It was a different time, and he was the grandfather of an amazing dog training method. I would love to ask Mr Koehler about some of his recommendations, but he has been dead for sometime. There are a handful of people that trained with him or took his classes that may be able to answer some questions or speculate on what he would change now, if anything.

There are always things in dog training that we can take or leave as we see fit. However, the sect of people calling this "war dog" training has just found another argument that is too general to possibly be disputed. Some techniques that are used with dogs, are used with humans in these arguments. When relevant points, written evidence, and facts are logically discussed, what happens is the use of "extinction" (common purely positive technique in if you ignore it, it will go away) comes into play. If we ignore them long enough, they will go away. It's somewhat insulting when these are used on the human parties involved, especially since it's gloated so much about in certain circles. "War Dog training" was a new excuse to me as to why not use "traditional training", as "science" was the old one. It's a general term used to be way more important than it actually is. Science, as it turns out, is the observation that dogs like food as payment. It is also the more important facial expressions on dogs and body language. However, the thing it is not, is a total dog training program for every temperament of dog!! Canines still remain individuals regardless about what are theories are of "how things should run".

The other tactic that is used is to suppress information and make sure everyone allowed in spews the same lines. Look up "traditional training" on the Dogstardaily.com site. Go on, find out if I am lying there, and be sure to read beyond the first paragraph. I have let the Dunbar family know of my disdain for calling traditional training the "darkside". Kelly Gorman Dunbar offered the following in her e-mail "I am going to change any old verbiage that is negative or inflammatory. That is not where I want to take the site." The unfortunate thing, is that's going to be well over fifty percent of the articles that are on there, and the site has already been taken in that direction. Also, the question of how this recently developed site, allowed all these old and negative articles to get on there? There are plenty of new blog postings with the same mantra going on. You need to be an approved author to blog, though not comment. Your comments are however monitored, and this has been a frequent theme in the more fanatical movement that strove to take over the APDT.

When I expressed my concern over new dog owners finding this site with very simplistic information, Kelly Gorman Dunbar offered the following "Ian's big focus is the prevention of behavior problems and early puppy training. That is how he thinks dog behavior problems can be resolved, by teaching people to prevent them". Well that would be all very well and good, if this was disclosed or promoted anywhere on this site in any way. As she disclosed to me in her e-mail "This is a starter resource and we" (believe she meant do not here) "promote working with trainers for anything other than the basics." Which is a good thing, as the accomplishments or graduating class photos of some of the esteemed bloggers there are not too impressive.

It's as likely that an adopter of a rescued adult or someone that did not bring puppy up exactly right in the first place, may very well be the visitor to this site. It's promoted as being the best minds in the industry, and there is no doubt that it's all advice slanted towards one direction and in one discipline. This is why I am so careful as to point people interested in this field towards the open minded trainers. Such organizations are able to speak on the strengths and weaknesses of any method, and through the actual experience of dog training. They also have alliances with people in the biology and behavioral science arena, that may be able to understand that there are limitations to a persons' knowledge, even if they are possessed with a Phd.

Now that being said, I have always maintained that someone who was a merger of the two (training in a measurable way, and not just beginning Novice type stuff) would really be top notch. However organizations and people that instill shame and fear, instead of references and help for dog problems that may be easily solved using another method or tactic.

I could say a lot more here about touching a dog and dog training, and how important touch is to dog training. No I did not say smack or even correct. Touching, shaping, and molding are not domination exercises, but socialization exercises and letting the dog know they can trust you. There is nothing wrong with correctly handling your dog. Nor is there anything wrong with saying the word "No". Dog is about to get into the face of an older dog trying to sleep "No", may distract the dog an avoid an incident. Or perhaps you let the older dog do that, as he is likely too, if you can trust that no over reaction will occur. There is nothing wrong with saying no. This is where this movement becomes so darned dangerous. Now something simple is considered "dominance", "extreme war dog training", and words like tradition that meant practices of a long time are re-termed to indicate "smacking", "helicoptering", or "violence". Excuses are made later that "oh, we weren't talking about you, we were talking about the general "them".

Additionally, if your dog works happily without treats, why would you want to train him to work only for treats? If you don't need to bribe your dog to want to be with you, I don't see why this would be a requirement in dog training. The "Food Critic" article on DogStarDaily.com seems to be suggesting (beyond that traditional is the dark side") to treat your dog at any cost.

At a later time, I will talk about the movement of "pet dog trainer" vs "dog trainer". You can see it in the professional titles of two professional organizations "Association of Pet Dog Trainers" and "International Association of Canine Professionals". How did this come about, and what was the disconnect here? It will be a very interesting article on how the dog training profession views dog owners, and how this effects the philosophies involved!!

Dr Ian Dunbar has a long history with the "Association of Pet Dog Trainers" and it is believed that his business model is part of what started the disconnect amongst philosophies. I believe there are a couple of articles out there or videos in which he may express his regret at this. He has become an professional member of the "International Association of Canine Professionals" which is home to many traditional dog trainers. In my opinion, he is a shining example of someone trying to get it both ways, and hurting animals, people, and organizations in a perhaps unexpected way in the process.

Dog training is a method that improves the relationship, and does not only address a symptom. If you do this the right way, your dog will "wag more and bark less":)

Got a behaviorally challenged pup or adult dog. Call Mannerly Mutts at 207-361-4395 or e-mail mannerly_mutt@yahoo.com.

Dog Friendly, Defining

There is a war raging outside of the eyes and ears of your average dog owner.   The war is over the right to define the words dog and friendly together, to meet the political ideals and needs of some dog organizations.   Why would something so simple and seemingly innocent be creating such a stir?


Before that question is answer, 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". 


Each dog is an individual.  As a dog trainer, there are no two dogs that have received the exact same training by myself.  The differences may be subtle in some instances, and very obvious in others.   Furthermore, personally witnessing improved relations in dogs who were problems to families, I don't go by the theory that only the most sedate and friendly of dogs should be pets.   Indeed, in order to have a certain drive and high intelligence, a dog might not be for most average families, but may be for families that wish to do some very specialized activities with their canine companions.     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 insofar as it is safe and possible to. 


The above paragraph and experiences in socializing dogs at shelters with no training programs, and training dogs in shelters that offer such programs have helped me develop for myself the idea of dog-friendly.   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. 


Many results based dog trainers use different tools 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 that are used properly and humanely.   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.   This is the friendliest thing that I can do for both the dog and the dog's family.


This is the reason that I am highly offended by the hijacking of this term by parties with only their own interests in mind.