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.

Arguments against e-collars

There are organizations out there that seek to ban various forms of dog training equipment. These organizations are Truly Dog Friendly (TDF), No Shock Collar Coalition (NSCC-also a website under baddogsinc), and the International Association of Positive Dog Trainers (IAPDT). Just to name a few, I am sure. These people want to limit dog training to clickers, treats, and haltis. The real art of dog training is being lost in the translation. Here are some of their arguments against both e-collars and traditional training collars (prongs and chokes et).

Argument 1) There must be pain in order for it to work.
a) Not true, in a training situation. It works because you train them or teach them what the response is. It’s a collar that you can signal to them without a leash. Treats, for instance, don’t “work” because there is pain associated with them.
b) A loud voice doest “work” because there is pain associated with them.
c) This is a tool that is correctly used in an overall training plan to develop a partnership of respect and trust.
Argument 2) Opposition wants to try it on then on high not the low levels they.
a) Well, it hurts on high levels. We all know this already; nothing is being proved by this. Except that it starts of the circular argument that these groups use when sensible points are made in regard to training. When they acknowledge that low levels do not work, then they will insist on the high levels.
b) There are higher levels due to distraction level and adrenaline level increases during highly excited moments (i.e. a dog fight). To test this properly and in the right context, you should be in a fistfight at a bar brawl LOL. Something that is more than likely if you get enough dog trainers in the same bar, but still…
c) Why do members of Truly Dog Friendly, No Shock Collar Coalition, or International Association of Positive Trainers members not want to try it at low levels? Because most are honest enough to admit that it does not hurt on proper working levels, and that answer does not serve their purpose.
Argument 3) They are inhumane and cruel.
a) The human in charge would need to have the intent to be inhumane and cruel to do so.
b) Any piece of equipment can become inhumane and cruel in abusive hands.
c) Good training with appropriate tools is something that opens up the whole world for your dog. This is positive and dog-friendly.
Argument 4) They cause aggression.
a) Any equipment used either incorrectly or is not right for that particular dog can cause aggression.
b) Treat training has caused aggression in some dogs that just can’t handle the responsibility of it.
c) Lack of training can cause aggression.
Argument 5) They are too complicated for the general public.
a) Someone inexperienced with the modern uses of this equipment should have an experienced trainer show them how to use it in the context of obedience training.
b) Properly introduced, this equipment is far easier to get correct timing down without the distractions of a long line, or needing to properly work the collar attached to the long line.
Argument 6) They burn the neck.
a) Most collars operate on two AA batteries. Think about that, while I look up an article on the possibility of that happening LOL.
b) All dogs coats and skin would burn and/or catch on fire if this was a possibility. You would also smell the hair actually burning (think about your hair curler or iron). It does not happen.
c) Due to the metal rubbing up against the skin if it’s on loosely, can cause skin sores to develop. The collar needs to be on tightly in order to work correctly and not rub up against the skin.
d) Tri-tronic’s collars metal prongs have been known to trigger an allergic skin reaction in some dogs. It becomes an itchy and bumpy rash, not a burn.
e) Since these collars go into the water, a wet dog’s coat compresses making the collar looser until it’s dried. Loose and damp, not a good combination to be against the skin.
Argument 7) They are used as punishment.
a) They are used as a way to communicate timely with a dog sans a leash on low levels, and so the dog knows they should be paying attention. This is not punishment any more than a tap on your shoulder would be a punishment.
b) They are used as a great way to get your dog off leash and enjoying the great outdoors. This is considered a huge reward to a dog.
8) They are only used for stopping problem behaviors in an aversive way.
a) They are used to train a language of communication and partnership between a dog and their owner.
b) They can be used this way, but many trainers personally recommend that obedience training under a proper training plan is the way to go, except in extreme life threatening circumstances.
Argument 9) They are used as positive PUNISHMENT only (see definitions of punishment in this article.).
Argument 10) Your dog can not be rewarded using this.
a) Freedom is a huge reward. Playing in the woods, not needing to be called back immediately when galloping after friends, and running those long legs all over the place. This is huge to most dogs.
b) Being able to be out and about with the family in different places and environments that allow dogs is a huge reward.
Argument 11) Science is against shock collars.
a) The "science" they used are based on flawed studies with dogs being shocked (not stimmed) at random instead of with a purpose of communication. Yes, that will make a dog neurotic and scared.
b) Note, there is no real big source that is funding studies on dog collars LOL. The biggest and best aren't out there outlining the perfect scientific study for this. When they are called upon for their expertise, it's normally at the request of the AR movements or these fanatics that are against training their dogs.
Argument 12) Traditional and electronic collars are designed to work through application of pain.
a) No that's absolutely not true with the exception of invisible electronic fence systems. Traditional collars are designed to not slip off the dog, to hold them in place, and give them a correction that need not be painful for not performing the command or for bolting et
b) Much the same way, but with benefits, the electronic collar is designed to be used at low levels in a training program. The low levels can be worked so they are barely felt, and the reward is the increased freedom.
Argument 13) Affective kinder and gentler methods exist than traditional training collars or electronic collars.
a) Here is a listing of what Truly Dog Friendly, No Shock Collar Coalition, and International Association of Positive Trainers find kinder and gentler, along with why some results based balanced trainers do not use these exclusively:
i) Treats-These can cause some dogs to be neurotic, while other rewards are more beneficial for them. I have personally owned dogs with heart conditions that can not eat a lot of treats. These same dogs reacted better to the benefits of a partnership, soft praise, and a pat on the head than to a treat.
ii) Haltis-Not good for training your dog off leash due to injury. Off leash training provides more control, socialization, and overall enjoyment for your dog. The halti also never stops correcting your dog. Not considered dog-friendly in those circles.
iii) Clickers-Good for initial training, but not well for distraction off leash training. Great for trick training and agility.
b) Another solution that these members have come up with is they would rather euthanize the dog if the above methods do not work. There are, after all, so many “good” dogs out there.
i) Just because a dog does not respond well to treats, clickers or halti type “training”, does not mean the dog is a bad dog.
ii) Other equipment and training works more due to the control over stronger and bigger animals than we are used to managing in our more sedentary domesticated lives. They mimic the kind of correction another dog would give them, without the injury or long term consequences! Also without the pain that an actual dog bite would inflict.
iii) Dogs are not disposable (or should not be), though for safety reasons of the owner, family, and other humans and animals; I would possibly recommend that this solution be looked into. However, many dogs that are out there simply respond to a good training plan with a responsible owner.
iv) A dog already in a home with a loving owner should definitely have a chance to continue their life there. Their lives are not devalued just because they have not been taught how to respond appropriately in our environment.
Argument 14) Kinder and gentler equipment exists (head haltis and other haltis or citronella collars).
a) Haltis of the head or under the arms and citronella collars are all tools where the dog can not get away from the negative stimulus.
b) As someone who gets headaches from strong smells, I would think the citronella collar would be torture for a dog.
c) Not only is the stimulation for a traditional collar or electronic collar completely controlled by the owner/handler, it is not used much at all if the dog is trained. Not only can it be used lightly, but the sensation can be as light as a tap on the shoulder. That tap goes away once the dog is again focused on you.
Argument 15) They must always continue to wear the traditional collar or electronic collar to behave.
a) If you have not done your training work, that would be true. However, even so, the traditional and electronic collar are off more client’s dogs much sooner than is comfortable for me, so I can’t see how that can be true.
b) All my dogs have been trained on traditional and electronic collar tools, and this has provided them with the ability to be off equipment most of the time. We run a daycare here without fences, and during those times the dogs on the property have their e-collars on in case of an emergency, because I am not going to risk health and safety to anything to make a point.
Argument 16) People do not have the timing skills to use the traditional collars or electronic collars.
a) You do need to learn skills to do anything well. I would not have learned to do calligraphy even horribly without lessons. Thank goodness though that there are teachers out there willing to give you their knowledge.
b) Balanced results-orientated trainers call this the “dumb down” of the general public. More and more people do not know how to train dogs, as the better trainers creating less homes for dogs with simply solved problems.
c) It is not brain surgery or rocket science, and it is helpful to have a professional there to show you an efficient and effective way to train a dog for the inexperienced.
Argument 17) They do work, but……see above.
a) This is the argument that is used by members of Truly Dog Friendly, No Shock Collar Coalition, or International Association of Positive Trainers right before the “train with pain” motto is initiated. See point #1.
b) Low levels as used in training plans of knowledgeable trainers do not hurt. Dogs do not learn well in response to real stress or pain as a training method. They do not need to hurt in order to work, anymore than any other training method or tool needs to pain to work.
Argument 18) They don’t work.
a) This is the argument these groups use for euthanizing any dog that can not or is hard to train with treats, clickers, and haltis. The argument is that it's false to assume that other training methods actually work, especially in order to make a hard to manage dog a safe family member.
b) They do work in training plan, just as any other piece of equipment does and can.
Argument 19) Clicker training is a more perfect and scientific choice.
a) Scientists discovered that it was useful in training Dolphins, Whales and Bears for medical procedures et. However, one does not often live with Dolphins Whales or Bears.
b) Training focuses on how we learn to build a language between ourselves and our dogs for every day living. For many of us, our dogs spend a large amount of time in our lives, where more exotic animals would not.
Argument 20) The traditional training collar or electronic collar is not “dog-friendly” and certainly not “truly dog-friendly”.
a) That depends whether you are defining it using the version of "dog friendly" as used by the political dog training groups of Truly Dog Friendly, No Shock Collar Coalition or International Association of Positive Dog Trainers. Or are you using the more reasonable definition of dog friendly, as in the attached article?
Argument 21) The e-collar works on the “dominance theory” only.
a) No it works based on partnership and communication that is initiated by a successful training plan.

b) Some groups are using "dominance theory" of their definition to define other methods such as the Dog Whisperer's methods, because their business is threatened by his popularity.
Argument 22) No one can explain exactly how the e-collar works.
a) Actually most results orientated balanced trainers can tell you how ALL of the equipment that they use works.
b) This is meant to be the same argument as "train with pain" on point number one. The implication being that if it can't be explained, it must be painful no matter what one's own senses and observation tells them or not.
c) The e-collar works in a training plan, the same as any other piece of equipment in a training plan would work, except that you don't get bogged down with a leash, and your timing can be much better, when used properly.
Argument 23) Traditionally or e-collar trained dogs are so calm, because they fear doing something wrong
.a) They are calm because they have been trained. Training provides a dog with a sense of safety, because their owner is looking out for them and all their needs. They have nothing to worry about.
b) Play time is still exciting, but a responsible owner always has this happening to challenge and entertain their dog. Dogs who lack this in their daily lives become over excited about the prospect of playing.
Argument 24) Used by people who simply can not be bothered to use patience to train their dog.
a) Haltis are the most often used equipment that such people would use.
b) An e-collar is not going to work well for training purposes for someone who lacks patience. Abusive and irresponsible people can find any number of things to abuse their dogs with.
c) It is used to quickly reward the dog with the freedoms that can be experienced once trained. It’s true, some people do not advance farther than a off leash “let’s go” command with their dog, but on a halti people, generally, advance even less than that.



Need your dog trained? Visit the http://www.mannerlymutts.com services page. Or contact me at 207-809-6300 in York Maine. Ask for Robin Rubin, Dog Trainer.



Say no to HSUS, PETA, No Shock Collar Coalition (NSCC), International Association of Positive Dog Trainers (IAPDT), 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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Dog Events Around York Maine

July 29th York Days Piscataqua Dog Obedience Show 6:00 –8:00 pm, Ellis Parks, York Beach Maine (Short Sands Beach Park)

August 3rd Bark in The Park in Hadlock Field in South Portland Maine (also check the Planet Dog site when it's back up)

August 10th Boatyard Dog Trials Rockland Maine

September 13th Woofminster Scarborough Maine

***Sorry but the sites listing these are very much influenced by the Purely Positive Political Dog Training Organizations. It's a sad but mostly unavoidable fact in this area.

Still, be seen with your well behaved dog. Let everyone know that your dog was trained positively, and also with the appropriate equipment and corrections.

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.

Who is trying to supress information?

What is it that Nancy Freedman-Smith (owner and trainer at Goodogz in Portland ME), blogger on http://mainepets.mainetoday.com/, doesn't want you to know? She has been working hard these days to suppress information on an organization that I don't agree with, just because she doesn't agree with me. And, oh yes, she is a member of this organization.

Generally, I wouldn't call another trainer out, however, Nancy herself is not afraid to call trainers out in this post and this post and this post and this post...(not me and I would rather you look at the post, rather than give credence to this for those poor trainers) She disagrees with them, and so she can name them. Isn't that special (pulling up the old church lady from Saturday Night Live old school). Apparently, Nancy is so special that she feels free to ban posts from public blogs, with the help of mainepets.com, of an organization that she belongs to, but that I disagree with. It's okay for her to talk about organizations and INDIVIDUALS BY NAME that she disagrees with, however.

She even talked about me on the Truly Dog Friendly Board, behind my back, as she thought it wouldn't get back to me!!!! About this article, she claimed I wasn't even a professional dog trainer without researching it!!!! Slander I say LOL (I really have nothing to worry about from her)! Just do a Google and Yahoo search or find an old copy of the Worcester MA yellow pages from when I lived there. Isn't it good to know you are in the capable hands of someone who looks at the information before posting it?

It is supposedly against mainpets.com's policy to allow their actions to be influenced by other member's disagreements on philosophy (yeah right)!! I am hoping to find a reply in my inbox today, that rectifies this situation. I was quiet and nice before, and didn't complain about her. My bad!!

Nancy Feedman Smith also belong's to the APDT where this kind of conduct is supposedly against professional membership rules. Association of Pet Dog Trainers, what steps have you taken for members like this?

Here is the information that Nancy would like y'all not to see:

There is this one about one of the founders of the Truly Dog-Friendly Organization. And here are the quotes from her that Nancy Freedman Smith and Truly Dog Friendly organization would really REALLY like everyone to forget about (acquired by others from the canine professional certification yahoo public board posts 421 and 430, shhhhhhhh):

"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 see why one would want everyone to forget that. Pain causing methods to Pat Miller include traditional training equipment that was recently referenced in an article by me OR electronic collars, which have levels so low that most dogs or humans can even feel them. However due to her philosphy, she would prefer death. Death=Truly Dog Friendly Organization. Huh?

Additionally it would be really good if you forgot this verification forwarded to me after being Posted on Truly Dog Friendly's Public Yahoo board by Pat Miller post # 7015 in it's entirety:

Re: going down with the ship?

<<The fact that someone cited Pat Miller's statement totally out of
context, means that they wish to use that statement against her and
any other positive-reinforcemany other positive-reinf
impression "They'd rather have a dog euthanized than ever use an e-
collar to help train it and save its life."
>>
>>
Actually, stated this way, the comment is essentially true for me, solely
because I believe it's a false premise that a shock collar would be necessary to
save the dog's life. I believe there are always other options. Although I
tend to state it as, "I can't imagine a situation in which I would feel
compelled to use a shock collar."

Ooookaaaayyyyy. Note to self, not the dog trainer for me!! Neither is one who does a consultation for dog training over the phone, without seeing the client in person in her own words. A two minute over the phone consult, and she pinpointed the problem!! Amazing.

Other articles in the series that Nancy Freedman Smith does not want you to know about. Sadly most places practice freedom of speech and democracy.

Here is the advice Nancy Freedman Smith will give you if you call her for help with a biting dog. She is very confident that they can help you.

Here is a picture of Nancy's graduating class. Draw your own conclusions. This wouldn't be good enough for me and my dog, and it shouldn't be good enough for you!!

A manners course normally includes dogs not jumping, and people not encouraging dogs to jump up, especially on children. As a post that is about a graduating class, I don't find these pictures particularly impressive.

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), International Association of Positive Dog Trainers (IAPDT), 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.

Association of Pet Dog Trainers/APDT

APDT is an association that has 4000 plus members of the canine professional community. I am member 67306. In first joining my professional memberships, there was the excitement of belonging. Little did I know the political issues that lurked below the surface. Actually, you didn't need to belong too long to other lists and professional organizations before the issues were clear.

However, if you are a member of the APDT, or Association of Pet Dog Trainers, you and your opinions will be censored on their training list. You will not be allowed to talk online to the membership of the APDT about policies and procedures. The board will make those decisions for you, without a membership vote.

I will not go into the TDF movement http://www.trulydogfriendly.com/blog/?page_id=15, but I as a member is against it. I am especially against an organization outside of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers trying to control policies without membership control. That is the five current BOD members make all decisions on policy without any kind of unanimous vote needed. 2 of these BOD members are currently in the TDF movement. 3 of the BOD nominees have aligned themselves witht he TDF movement. There has been unauthorized spam promoting TDF from a current BOD member using APDT's listing of trainers.

There are no attempts to even hide their high handed treatment and disregard for their membership. TDF membership is only 50 people, not all of which (by their own admission) are APDT members.

Stop the madness. http://mannerlymutts.typepad.com/mannerly_mutts/2006/07/apdt_petition.html

You can also join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/againstcensorshipintheAssocofPetDogTrainer/

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.