# Aggressive/Reactive Dogs: Is it possible for them to ever truly recover?



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I am writing this after two very excellent days with my reactive dog Brody. We went to Fido's Festival USA on Saturday and to the dog park today. Both times there wasn't a single episode of reactivity and he was more social with people and dogs than he's ever been. 

Seeing him act like a "normal" dog gives me hope, however one of the regulars at the dog park said something today that sort of discouraged/disgusted me. I was talking to someone who knew Brody and I before we took a break from the dog park when his reactivity started getting bad. He couldn't believe it was the same dog and marveled at how well Brody was focused on me and how well he listened. This lady decided to chime into our conversation and said I should never trust Brody and that it's impossible for a dog like him to ever truly be "normal." She said if he was her dog, she would have put him to sleep. Now I know he will never be a therapy dog and I will have to keep an eye out on his body language to make sure he's not uncomfortable with the situation, but I am more confident than ever that I can manage his issues and he can do things all other "normal" dogs do like go to a dog park, go to a pet store, and go to festivals with me and my family. 

I am aware that we have a lot of work to do still, but we are making huge strides and I am confident that we are heading in the right direction. I truly do not believe he is a dangerous dog and he is definitely not out of control in any way, shape, or form. I know I will have to take more precautions than I do with my other dogs when we are in public, but I do not feel like he's unsafe or unpredictable. Am I just in denial, or is it possible for a formerly aggressive/reactive dog to be safe in a public setting? 

Also, our trainer approved both activities and told me what to keep an eye out for, how to manage any possible issues, and general guidelines to follow. I trust her opinion immensely, but I am looking for other insight.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't know all of Brody's history, but it sounds like he's doing well. I think that dogs are who they are, and there are some things you need to be aware of about how they cope with their enviroment. Some dogs tend to implode, some tend to explode. But . . . what constitutes "normal"? Most dogs and most people are going to have limits somewhere along the line where their coping skills fail them. I truly believe that most dog reactive dog behavior is based on avoiding conflict rather than seeking it. Even if it is the dog screaming and lunging. If you can give the dog better ways of avoiding conflict which are easier for them, that's what they'll use. I see no reason to believe the lady at the dog park knows anything about your dog, what he can handle or even dogs in general.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

He may not be perfect or completely non reactive..but you know him and can see when he's getting stressed. You've done the work, he's doing better. Ignore the idiot with the big mouth who likely would put her dog down if it ever made a slight growl. Small people, small minds. 

Cracker is MUCH improved. I know what she can handle and I know what she can't or when she's starting to build tension. She will likely never be a TOTALLY relaxed dog all the time and that's okay, but then, neither am I . lol


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

See, Brody's problem is that he seeks socialization (play, petting, chasing, etc.) and when something happens during the course of it that makes him nervous, the only way he knows how to deal with it is to explode (snarl, growl, snap) to make what's going on stop. He's learned to turn to me when he's uncomfortable so I can "save" him and I learned what to look for and how to be a better advocate for my dog. I am beginning to realize that I was 90% of Brody's problem. He always trusted me to look out for his best interest but I wasn't picking up on the subtle clues that he needed my interference. For example, I never realized that he makes eye contact with me when someone leans too close to him while petting because I was too busy watching the PERSON to see what they were doing when Brody started growling. To me, my dog simply started growling while being pet and I couldn't make a correlation between what "types" of people Brody was growling at vs. what the person was doing when he started growling. He is more relaxed in general now that he knows that I will step in every time before something escalates to the point where he feels he needs to do something about it.

The motion reactivity pretty much disappeared on it's own and I'm not sure what it was that made it stop. How is motion reactivity usually addressed? I've taken him to the bike path just to really test to see if it's gone, and he ignored everything going by him. I'm truly baffled.


----------



## mustlovedogs123 (Mar 23, 2011)

Just because the problem in under control does not mean that it is gone and you don't have to think about it anymore! 
Rigz is reactive to strangers touch and I think he always will be because he is sensing me being uncomfortable with strangers. He is under control most of the time but the problem is not gone altogether I have a lifetime of work to do on myself and him!
I think that that ladie was wrong to just assume that she knows your dog and I disagree with people puting their pets down just because they have a problem that usually stems from the owners in the first place!!
Get excited about every stride Brody makes in this journey, don't let people bring you down!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Cracker said:


> He may not be perfect or completely non reactive..but you know him and can see when he's getting stressed. You've done the work, he's doing better. Ignore the idiot with the big mouth who likely would put her dog down if it ever made a slight growl. Small people, small minds.
> 
> Cracker is MUCH improved. I know what she can handle and I know what she can't or when she's starting to build tension. She will likely never be a TOTALLY relaxed dog all the time and that's okay, but then, neither am I . lol


I think You're home free, cause if your work continues and the dog becomes totally cured great, if not and he still has unseen problems he's got you for his backup. It's pretty much a win-win situation. You know what is possible with this dog, bad or good and must handle accordingly.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Do not let that lady bother you or discourage you. She sounds like one of those people who can't handle it when other people receive compliments; they have to add something negative so that the compliment doesn't sound so great....

You sound like you're doing great. You understand you have to monitor your dog, and you do it. If he never has a reactive episode every again, great! But, if he does, you're ready for it.

I think, from your title question, I'd side more towards no, a reactive dog doesn't really "recover", so to speak. I think that you have given him the skills and training to react differently, most of the time. But, as Pawz said, dogs are who they are, and sometimes, all the training and skills in the world may not be enough if something pushes them past their threshold.

I have a reactive dog, and for the longest time I was all about doing what it took to make him "better". But, our breakthrough came when I learned (from lots of advice and research) that Harper is who he is. I shouldn't be embarrassed by him, or angry/frustrated with him. I should help him learn to feel safer, and behave safely. And, to us, it's an ongoing process...


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I recently saw this vid on youtube that illustrates a good example of how a reactive dog can improve (whether you like the methods or not). I feel it is still somewhat of a tricky call on bringing a dog that has the potential to fight to a dog park. The interaction could do your dog good but is it fair to possibly endanger other dogs? A bad experience in that uncontroled env can also set a dog way back. 

Im not saying your wrong for going, just sayin


----------



## troglodytezzz (Oct 19, 2010)

What are the whips in the video used for?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

That's in case a horse comes to class. 

It's that I'm a skeptic and we saw all the good stuff the dog did and I would have preferred to see the dog before the training when he was in his attack mode. All we saw were people explaining what a very bad dog he was before the work. 

More opinions please.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

jiml said:


> I recently saw this vid on youtube that illustrates a good example of how a reactive dog can improve (whether you like the methods or not). I feel it is still somewhat of a tricky call on bringing a dog that has the potential to fight to a dog park. The interaction could do your dog good but is it fair to possibly endanger other dogs? A bad experience in that uncontroled env can also set a dog way back.
> 
> Im not saying your wrong for going, just sayin


There's pretty much minimal to no chance of Brody getting into a dog fight in an off-leash environment. Even at his worst, his dog reactivity is exclusively on-leash and frustration based. I feel he's as much of a risk as any other dog in that environment. Just like dog aggression does not always translate to human aggression, on leash reactivity does not always translate to off leash reactivity.

Even at his worst, he was no where near the level of dog reactivity as that dog in the video. I never let it get that bad before getting help from a professional.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Even at his worst, he was no where near the level of dog reactivity as that dog in the video. I never let it get that bad before getting help from a professional.


I am a bit confused, "what level of reactivity" Have I missed part of the video?


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

At the beginning where they show the dog barking and charging at god knows what (presumably a dog) at the end of his leash.

Also, the rude behavior while they're talking to the trainer at the beginning would have been nipped in the bud right away. I have no patience for that.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Yes it's that word "Presumably" that disturbs me. Also a 2 week course with a truly disturbed dog just does not work. Unless there is some heavy usage of a magic wand that I don't know about. Does not common sense dictate the video is a load of whatever they thought the market would bear.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Just like dog aggression does not always translate to human aggression, on leash reactivity does not always translate to off leash reactivity.>>>>

understood


What are the whips in the video used for>>>>
My guess is its used to keep the dogs constantly moving. The trainer in the vid i believe follows "pack to basics" http://www.packtobasics.com/ I dont know much about it.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Hi all, 
I am the trainer in the above video. Here some responses to your points:
I agree, I wish I could have gotten more footage of him in "attack mode" but it just wasn't possible, I didn't have any staff with me during the evaluation, in the office I had tripods, but outside there was no one to hold the camera and follow movement. My hands needed to be free just in case. 
In the scenes where he is reacting, there is another dog present, you can briefly see her in one of the clips.

The horse whips simply become an extension of our arms, giving us greater reach and quicker reaction time. I like them because the are flexible and can gently guide dogs, you see me doing this in the video.

Someone here stated that a two week course will not work. Yep, I agree, the bootcamp is a starting point and allows us to make a ton of progress in short time, all clients are instructed that if they don't come for follow up training they are wasting their time and money. If you listen to the end of the vid I point out that they are coming to regular socialization classes. they also come for obedience, so I continue to see them 2x weekly. 

It is also correct that our socialization follows the Pack To Basics format, and yes, sometimes it really is that quick. Call it a load if you want, I wouldn't believe it either unless I saw it with my own eyes. Theres nothing magical going on here, I take what I do very seriously and I don't believe in gimmicks or secrets.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> Hi all,
> I am the trainer in the above video. Here some responses to your points:
> I agree, I wish I could have gotten more footage of him in "attack mode" but it just wasn't possible, I didn't have any staff with me during the evaluation, in the office I had tripods, but outside there was no one to hold the camera and follow movement. My hands needed to be free just in case.
> In the scenes where he is reacting, there is another dog present, you can briefly see her in one of the clips.
> ...


Hi. Tyler. Do you actually believe that positive reinforcement based trainers are purely positive? Or is that an intentional red herring?


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Hi. Tyler. Do you actually believe that positive reinforcement based trainers are purely positive? Or is that an intentional red herring?


I think this question can easily create a slippery slope of semantics. It really depends on how your perceive the concept of pure positive. If you simply mean that the trainer does not actively add any aversive into the picture, than yes I think many trainers attempt to do this. How successful they are is going to be determined by the type of training they are doing (competition, agility, behavior mod etc.) and what their standards are. 

Realistically, for positive training to work their has to be a negative, even if it is natural and not man made. For instance, if a border collie is very driven for his frisbee, and the frisbee is presented, he will feel slight anxiety as he figures out how to "achieve" the frisbee. Accomplishing his goal and getting his handler to toss the frisbee by performing a trick thus means satisfaction and a removal of this anxiety. So when looked at this way, it can be viewed as negative reinforcement, and positive reinforcement at the same time. Doing the trick removes the stress and anxiety of desire (negative reinforcement) and achieves the frisbee (positive reinforcement)

Personally I don't think that this is how skinner meant for the concepts to be understood, but you can see where I'm going. I guess the answer to that question is: "It's depends who you are talking to."

IMO, yes PP as it is presented by it's advocates exists, I just don't always believe it is a good idea, or necessarily more humane/ethical etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> IMO, yes PP as it is presented by it's advocates exists, I just don't always believe it is a good idea, or necessarily more humane/ethical etc.


Which advocates can you name who present themselves as purely positive? Thanks. For myself, I'm not "purely positive" I use a lot of positive reinforcement, and a bit of negative punishment, and even (very occasionally) negative reinforcement. By some people's definition, there are things I do which might be hands-off (non-physical) positive punishment for instance, verbal interrruptors - I personally think that's a stretch. What I don't need is prong collars, e-collars, physical aversives to get my point across. I've used them in the past and observed for myself what works best and what leaves big holes. I've seen some of the best positive reinforcement trainers in the world in action, and I don't think I would refer to them as "purely positive" but that's okay, because the only people I've heard talk about the mythical creature called the "Purely Positive" trainer are people who want to justify physical force.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Which advocates can you name who present themselves as purely positive?


I think you are asking Tyler Muto, but I'm going to jump in here for a second. I would suggest that kikopup/Emily Larlham is pretty darn close! I recall one of her videos where she even talked about why you shouldn't use "no" or other negative sounds like "ah ah" etc. There are other vids that are in the same vein. I think that is pretty darn close to presenting herself as purely positive (though we only really see her with her dogs, as I believe you have mentioned before). Not saying I have a problem with her, her stuff has been a huge help for some things with us!



Pawzk9 said:


> the only people I've heard talk about the mythical creature called the "Purely Positive" trainer are people who want to justify physical force.


Sorry, but this is a little harsh in my opinion. The way you phrase it almost reads like you are saying that they are trying to justify beating their dog. I'm hoping it just reads worse than you meant it to.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

because the only people I've heard talk about the mythical creature called the "Purely Positive" trainer are people who want to justify physical force.>>>>

Well Im not saying these are big names in any industry so to speak. But you can go on Many message boards and find those that advocate "pure positive training" and insist that for the most part it exists. I think both of us would disagree (regardless of our own methods).


----------



## upfromtheashes (Mar 10, 2008)

Lindbert said:


> See, Brody's problem is that he seeks socialization (play, petting, chasing, etc.) and when something happens during the course of it that makes him nervous, the only way he knows how to deal with it is to explode (snarl, growl, snap) to make what's going on stop.


If the worst he's doing is snarling, growling, and snapping, then I would be very encouraged. Those aren't aggression behaviors, those are WARNING behaviors! The fact that he's giving warnings instead of going beastmode is a huge positive! 

I'm no expert, but recently I've learned a lot about bite inhibition and how imperative it is. "Aggressive" dogs who inhibit their bite are really nowhere near the problem that many people think they are. "Aggressive" dogs who have never learned to inhibit their bite, and who subsequently inflict damage......those are your candidates who may unfortunately need to be put down.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Greater Swiss said:


> Sorry, but this is a little harsh in my opinion. The way you phrase it almost reads like you are saying that they are trying to justify beating their dog.


A lot of people DO, though, it can't be discounted. And those kinds of trainers take great pleasure in dissing positive trainers.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I think you are asking Tyler Muto, but I'm going to jump in here for a second. I would suggest that kikopup/Emily Larlham is pretty darn close! I recall one of her videos where she even talked about why you shouldn't use "no" or other negative sounds like "ah ah" etc. There are other vids that are in the same vein. I think that is pretty darn close to presenting herself as purely positive (though we only really see her with her dogs, as I believe you have mentioned before). Not saying I have a problem with her, her stuff has been a huge help for some things with us!
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is a little harsh in my opinion. The way you phrase it almost reads like you are saying that they are trying to justify beating their dog. I'm hoping it just reads worse than you meant it to.


Yup. Emily is awfully darned close. I think she is an excellent trainer, and I think the best trainers are the ones who explain to their dog how to gain reward instead of how to avoid an aversive. If you actually read Emily Larlham's philosophy of training http://www.dogmantics.com/Dogmantics/Progressive_Reinforcement_Manifesto.html you will see that she doesn't speak against negative punishment (keeping the dog from getting reinforced for the wrong behavior). She only speaks against physical or mental intimidation as a training tool. It is certainly easier to prevent unwanted behaviors from happening with positive reinforcement than it is to break already set patterns without at least some negative punishment. Possible, certainly, but the person has to have the patience and ability to think outside the box. 

As to your leap from justifying physical force to beating dogs? Well, what can I say? I don't think physical force equates to beating. I think much of the time it doesn't even mean intimidation. I think pushing a dog's butt down to get a sit is a less effective way to teach the behavior. But I don't think it is abusive or even eenie teenie meanie. I just think it is less effective. But I acknowledge that it will eventually get the job done. I think depending on a prong collar is less effective than teaching a dog to stay engaged and walk on a loose leash. But I don't think it is abusive. I do think it's something I don't recommend or use.

All I can think is that you are buying Tyler and the other balanced trainers' koolade about what positive reinforcement or progressive reinforcement trainers believe - which is partially true and partially bunk. It's the bunk part that people like Tyler use to argue that it can't possibly be effective. Of course it can. In fairness, training with aversives can be effective too. I know, as I did it for many years. I choose the method I have found (by personal usage) to be MOST effective for MOST dogs. And I don't claim that people who aren't doing what I am doing are dog abusers, unless there is clear evidence that they do abuse dogs (which a random few do). I've also known a random few people who call themselves "positive" trainers who use a fair amount of emotional intimidation or psychological abuse to get what they want. I don't approve of that any more than I approve of people who physically abuse dogs. I think any method is open to someone figuring out how to use it in an overly coersive way. That doesn't mean the method is bad. It means you have to use your brain and your gut. And decide what you are willing to do, and if it is necessary. I gotta think you must feel worse about the physical methods than I do, to have such a knee jerk reaction to the phrase "physical force" It is what it is. It means you are physically manipulating or controlling a dog into doing something. That's all it means. Oh, and punishment? All that means is making a behavior less likely to occur. It doesn't mean abuse either.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> because the only people I've heard talk about the mythical creature called the "Purely Positive" trainer are people who want to justify physical force.>>>>
> 
> Well Im not saying these are big names in any industry so to speak. But you can go on Many message boards and find those that advocate "pure positive training" and insist that for the most part it exists. I think both of us would disagree (regardless of our own methods).


So . . . name me names that I'd recognize. Lots of people on the internet say lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are talking about. Quite honestly, I tend to be a little suspicious of people who train the way they train out of guilt or simply because they don't want to hurt their dog's feelings. I'm not sure that is a basis for an effective, useable training plan. Me, I'm simply looking for really clear communication so I can train the dog effectively. I find that predominantely positive reinforcement, with no physical positive punishment/negative reinforcement gives me a dog who is really open to learning effectively. Puts me and the dog on the same team instead of in a power struggle. I don't have to win. We both win. Your results may vary, of course. And that's fine. I'm just tired of hearing all the false information that's put out by people who are in denial about this training strategy, and actually have no experience with it.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

people like Tyler use to argue that it can't possibly be effective>>>>>


he said that???????????????

It could just be reading emotion into typewritten statements but you come off as derogatory.


Emily is darn good at what she does. But I also can say evan graham is dard good at what he does and im not sure either ones techniques work quite as well for what the other is doing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> people like Tyler use to argue that it can't possibly be effective>>>>>
> 
> 
> he said that???????????????
> ...


I don't suppose you watched his other videos? I did. I can't help what people read into what I write, if I didn't put it there. So, if you want to find me derogatory, you will find me derogatory. I'll just go on talking about dog training, and you can go on putting words in my mouth.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I'll just go on talking about dog training, and you can go on putting words in my mouth>>>

OK, I thought I was being quite diplomatic as emotions can often be misunderstood in type


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> But I don't think it is abusive or even eenie teenie meanie.


I love it. Oh rest of reply pretty good too.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't suppose you watched his other videos? I did.


Im thinking your refrencing this


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Im thinking your refrencing this


Yes. A stinking heap of misinformation. So many wrong assumptions there, I wouldn't even know where to begin.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> It is also correct that our socialization follows the Pack To Basics format, and yes, sometimes it really is that quick. Call it a load if you want, I wouldn't believe it either unless I saw it with my own eyes. Theres nothing magical going on here, I take what I do very seriously and I don't believe in gimmicks or secrets.


Oh don't get me wrong when I mentioned the magic wand program. I saw no magic or training on the video, though I finally did see a dogs head further into the video. The next part of video started with Drake sitting on one side of bldg quietly but no explanation of how dog got there and no training just the dog walking through other dogs. I'm not sure whether we are to believe that Drake was scared when they turned him loose in room and he ran to that area and just sat there. 

Since I am a self-admitted aversive user I'm not gonna remark on the whips but I have my own thoughts on that.

Through the many years in the training business I have had some (what I call) butt kicking dogs come through the kennels and turning them loose in a room full of dogs stable or not would have been a bloodbath, and yes also some that were mucho reactive on lead and babies when off lead. I'm just sayin'....



> Also, the rude behavior while they're talking to the trainer at the beginning would have been nipped in the bud right away. I have no patience for that.


I agree with the above. Not being there in person to read the dog I can't say for sure but in all probability from viewing the video it did not seem to be that big a deal.

I have mentioned on another thread about a trainer I knew personally that did obedience training and had customers coming back for 2-3 and sometimes 5 courses actually he had some customers coming back for a couple years. I think they call that job security. Not knocking it just not for me. I wanted dog in, dog out and in with a new dog.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

upfromtheashes said:


> If the worst he's doing is snarling, growling, and snapping, then I would be very encouraged. Those aren't aggression behaviors, those are WARNING behaviors! The fact that he's giving warnings instead of going beastmode is a huge positive!
> 
> I'm no expert, but recently I've learned a lot about bite inhibition and how imperative it is. "Aggressive" dogs who inhibit their bite are really nowhere near the problem that many people think they are. "Aggressive" dogs who have never learned to inhibit their bite, and who subsequently inflict damage......those are your candidates who may unfortunately need to be put down.


We actually had to train him that growls and snarls and other non-contact ways of telling people he doesn't like what they're doing to him was okay. When we first got him he had all of his warning signals burned (literally, his face is covered in cigarette burn scars) out of him and he'd go straight to a bite if someone made him nervous. He's come a very long way in a year.


The trainer that made the biggest difference in our life is a "purely positive" trainer in the fact that she doesn't use even verbal corrections in training. "No" is not part of our vocabulary. We did see dramatic results in 2 weeks simply because she helped us learn ways to communicate clearly and effectively with one another and I finally got it through to Brody that he was safe with me and that he can relax and trust that I would never put him in a situation where something bad would happen to him. Since we started working with this trainer (5 weeks next Wednesday) I have put him in more social situations and challenges than I have in MONTHS and haven't had a single episode of growling, snarling, or snapping. He's been able to participate and do things that were impossible in the past such as running a fun lure coursing run (before I would have been too afraid of giving him to the volunteers to handle at the starting line and/or the volunteers at the end to leash him up), he met a person in a big scary furry mascot costume (he leaned up against them and snuggled up for petting,) and he was able to attend a GROUP obedience class and relax and focus enough on me to actually learn something and not embarrass me. 

And as far as if "purely positive" methods exist, I think they don't because obviously my withholding of chest scratches when Brody doesn't comply or refusing to walk in the direction he wants so badly to go when he's pulling can't be viewed too positively by him when it happens. You can't teach an animal something if you have no way of letting them know they're not doing the behavior you want them to. Verbal corrections are largely ignored by him, especially if he's in reactive mode however turning around and silently walking the other way speaks volumes to him.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> We actually had to train him that growls and snarls and other non-contact ways of telling people he doesn't like what they're doing to him was okay. When we first got him he had all of his warning signals burned (literally, his face is covered in cigarette burn scars) out of him and he'd go straight to a bite if someone made him nervous. He's come a very long way in a year.


I believe I would go straight to bite also with that type of abuse. This is the type of dog that much work is needed and it sounds like you and your trainer are on top of everything.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Honestly, it says a LOT about his character that he isn't much worse off than he is. I can't even imagine the potential he would have had if I had him from puppyhood. He freaks out if he sees someone with a lit cigarette, but I can't say I blame him for that. He's an ongoing project dog but he has brought on a whole new level of meaning to my life.

The most sadistic part is that the majority of the burns were under his lips and on his gums. He was a good enough dog to allow them to handle his mouth only to do that to him. He isn't mouth-shy at all and accepts any sort of handling from me and at the vet.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Lindbert said:


> The most sadistic part is that the majority of the burns were under his lips and on his gums. He was a good enough dog to allow them to handle his mouth only to do that to him.


Ok, that part disgusted me. At least he's in your hands now! Keep up the good work!


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Yes. A stinking heap of misinformation. So many wrong assumptions there, I wouldn't even know where to begin.>>>>


I agree w most of it and believe i am well versed and read in pos reinforcement. Just shows how 2 can be given similar info and come to diff conclusions. 

I have no problem w pos training but like all else I just feel it has its limits with some dogs/situations and that some devotees will euth a dog before breaking w their philosophy. Thats my only beef w some.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Yes. A stinking heap of misinformation. So many wrong assumptions there, I wouldn't even know where to begin.>>>>
> 
> 
> I agree w most of it and believe i am well versed and read in pos reinforcement. Just shows how 2 can be given similar info and come to diff conclusions.
> ...


Nope. It really is a stinking heap of misinformation. If you agree with it, I have to assume you have read about positive reinforcement, but never actually grasped how it works. Because that's not it. I don't care if this guy wants to be a balanced trainer. I don't care what kind of trainer you are either. I DO care when people intentionally (or through ignorance) misrepresent the type of training I do. I wonder if it would surprise you to know that I have taken on (and helped) dogs that balanced trainers suggested needed to be euthanized. The fact is, punishing a reactive or aggressive dog's behavior doesn't really address the problem. It just puts it off for another day.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

The fact is, punishing a reactive or aggressive dog's behavior doesn't really address the problem. It just puts it off for another day.>>>>>

and id say - you do not understand how it works. because your description is incorrect. LOL


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

jiml said:


> and id say - you do not understand how it works. because your description is incorrect. LOL


So how does it work? Instead of LOL-ing at people you should maybe try to explain the principles. If you're trying to advocate for punishment-based training you aren't doing a very good job of it.

Because, yes, that's been my experience, too. Punishment-based training used on reactive dogs seems to be the same as a person with anger management problems trying to suppress his temper instead of actually addressing the underlying issue. Someday, he will explode, and it won't be pretty.

And I don't know what percentage of R+ trainers are willing to kill a dog instead of "breaking with their philosophy". But I do know that a LOT of punishment-based trainers (at least the ones I know) claim that they'd rather kill a dog than use more positive methods. That may just be macho posturing but they do like to say it frequently.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> The fact is, punishing a reactive or aggressive dog's behavior doesn't really address the problem. It just puts it off for another day.>>>>>
> 
> and id say - you do not understand how it works. because your description is incorrect. LOL


I don't know how you train, or how what you do works. Lets just say, I've used a variety of methods/philosophies, and I DO understand how punishment works. I also understand how trainers use it. The difference here, I suspect, is that I have a range of experience.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Oh don't get me wrong when I mentioned the magic wand program. I saw no magic or training on the video, though I finally did see a dogs head further into the video. The next part of video started with Drake sitting on one side of bldg quietly but no explanation of how dog got there and no training just the dog walking through other dogs. I'm not sure whether we are to believe that Drake was scared when they turned him loose in room and he ran to that area and just sat there.


Again, nothing fancy here. I've had enough experience doing this that I know how to evaluate a dog based on reading their body language while on leash first. The key is that every other dog in that room is a dog that I know will go out of their way to avoid a fight. When we first bring a dog like drake in, we use our bodies, and the whips to keep dogs away from him. You will also see in my hand a little tool called a pet convincer, which is just compressed air. It's definitely aversive, but not painful. Beleive it or not, we didn't use any corrections on drake to socialize him, the air was for any of the other dogs who didn't get the point that drake needed space. 
This allowed drake to see right away that we were there to help and protect him. I only let dogs approach him when I could see that he was gaining confidence. 
The pack to basics format is from Chad Mackin. Chad learned from the late **** Russel who pioneered large field socialization. This stuff has been around for a long time. 

To PawzK9, I respect the fact that we have differing opinions, and that you are able to have a conversation about it rather than resorting to name calling, which is all too often where these conversations go. I am a firm believer that if there were no differing opinions, no progress would ever be made.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> So how does it work? Instead of LOL-ing at people you should maybe try to explain the principles. If you're trying to advocate for punishment-based training you aren't doing a very good job of it.
> 
> Because, yes, that's been my experience, too. Punishment-based training used on reactive dogs seems to be the same as a person with anger management problems trying to suppress his temper instead of actually addressing the underlying issue. Someday, he will explode, and it won't be pretty.
> 
> And I don't know what percentage of R+ trainers are willing to kill a dog instead of "breaking with their philosophy". But I do know that a LOT of punishment-based trainers (at least the ones I know) claim that they'd rather kill a dog than use more positive methods. That may just be macho posturing but they do like to say it frequently.


Where are you at, almost 50 years in dog training and having talked with a lot of punishment based trainers (using your description not mine) I have never heard a trainer say they would rather kill a dog than use positive, If true, you are in very weird place meeting some very psychotic type trainers.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Where are you at, almost 50 years in dog training and having talked with a lot of punishment based trainers (using your description not mine) I have never heard a trainer say they would rather kill a dog than use positive, If true, you are in very weird place meeting some very psychotic type trainers.


Not professional trainers. But a lot of the hunters who train their own dogs are fond of saying things like "if I had to give my dog treats to teach him something, I'd shoot him myself!" Or "if my dog was so soft I couldn't use X method, I'd put him down". Like I said, probably macho posturing, but I've heard it from more than a few.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Not professional trainers. But a lot of the hunters who train their own dogs are fond of saying things like "if I had to give my dog treats to teach him something, I'd shoot him myself!" Or "if my dog was so soft I couldn't use X method, I'd put him down". Like I said, probably macho posturing, but I've heard it from more than a few.


So basically you were just talking about a bunch of amateur "Good Old Boys" and did not think it was misleading to call them trainers. Absolutely mind-boggling


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> So basically you were just talking about a bunch of amateur "Good Old Boys" and did not think it was misleading to call them trainers. Absolutely mind-boggling


Only professional trainers get to be called trainers? I guess regular pet/hunting dog owners who do their own training can't be classified as an R+ trainer or the opposite (I don't know what to call non-positive trainers. Everything seems to be wrong according to somebody)? Even if they've had/trained a lot of dogs in their lives? Sorry, I just don't know what to call them then. "Random dog-owning guys who like to hunt and train their own dogs without using R+, or at least like to make it sound that way", maybe. Seems cumbersome but I'll try to remember. 

I don't even know of any professional trainers (OK, I looked in the Yellow Pages. There are 2 listed and the phone book is for this entire half of the state), I think the majority of dog owners train their own dogs. And I am inclined to classify them according to what style of training they prefer.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> To PawzK9, I respect the fact that we have differing opinions, and that you are able to have a conversation about it rather than resorting to name calling, which is all too often where these conversations go. I am a firm believer that if there were no differing opinions, no progress would ever be made.


The thing is, though, you're not going to get progress by passing on misinformation, which your video does. What do you think the "one tool" a positive reinforcement/progressive reinforcement trainer has? A clicker? A cookie? Wouldn't that be pretty much like saying that since the dog is wearing a prong collar in your video, a prong collar is the only tool you have? Or maybe a dressage whip? I have as many tools as my imagination, my experience and 30-something years of dog training will allow me. The tools I won't use are pretty limited. But they do exist. And I don't miss them or need them. You make a number of very odd assumptions, like it's going to be easier for an average owner to deliver an appropriately timed and effective punisher to an off leash dog in a high distraction environment than it is to get a recall by positive reinforcement in that situation (what is an untrained dog doing off leash in a high distraction situation anyway? Stupidity?) My dog will be trained before I ask that of him. My students' dogs are trained before they ask that, and we add distractions and make sure the dog knows what to do before we give that kind of freedom. No matter how you train it, a solid behavior is habit. When the dog hears the cue or command, he's not thinking about other options. My pup had a solid recall in high distraction situations by 5 months. I can call him off rabbits. I can ask him to drop and not touch a bird carcass. All taught with positive reinforcement and clear communication. As to your whole "I wouldn't work unless you paid me", it ignores a great deal that is known about behavior and how a variable schedule of reinforcement makes it more durable, not less. Yeah. If you just stopped paying the dog, behavior would deteriorate. If you provide reinforcement on a variable schedule you have a dog who will give you a lot of behavior for a little bit of reward. Sort of like the guy who worked the same place as my husband, but lost his job because the casino wouldn't let him go to work. I think if you truly understood how this sort of training works and find it doesn't work for you, that would be a lot different then guessing what happens when you use it, and discount it based on ignorance about the process, or mouthing the platitudes you can gain on any "balanced trainers" list (yeah, I've lurked) I do not, for instance, need to put out videos discounting my competition's methods. What I do can stand on its own merit.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I gotta think you must feel worse about the physical methods than I do, to have such a knee jerk reaction to the phrase "physical force" It is what it is. It means you are physically manipulating or controlling a dog into doing something. That's all it means. Oh, and punishment? All that means is making a behavior less likely to occur. It doesn't mean abuse either.


Not really, I'm completely fine with physical methods, appropriately and correctly used. It wasn't the "physical force" part that got me, it was the "justifying" part. The word "justify" sounds like it is a training method that someone would feel requires justification to use. Like Willowy's example above, justifying harsh methods because these hunters and their dogs are just too hardcore for "softer" methods. Oh, and I'm aware punishment doesn't mean abuse, if it did I'd probably be considered abusive and I know better than that. Of course it begs the (partially rhetorical) question; what forms of training should have to be justified?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> Not really, I'm completely fine with physical methods, appropriately and correctly used. It wasn't the "physical force" part that got me, it was the "justifying" part. The word "justify" sounds like it is a training method that someone would feel requires justification to use. Like Willowy's example above, justifying harsh methods because these hunters and their dogs are just too hardcore for "softer" methods. Oh, and I'm aware punishment doesn't mean abuse, if it did I'd probably be considered abusive and I know better than that. Of course it begs the (partially rhetorical) question; what forms of training should have to be justified?


Shrug. I just justified how I train. I don't have a problem with that.
jus·ti·fiedjus·ti·fy·ing

Definition of JUSTIFY
transitive verb
1a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing is, though, you're not going to get progress by passing on misinformation, which your video does. What do you think the "one tool" a positive reinforcement/progressive reinforcement trainer has? A clicker? A cookie? Wouldn't that be pretty much like saying that since the dog is wearing a prong collar in your video, a prong collar is the only tool you have? Or maybe a dressage whip? I have as many tools as my imagination, my experience and 30-something years of dog training will allow me. The tools I won't use are pretty limited. But they do exist. And I don't miss them or need them. You make a number of very odd assumptions, like it's going to be easier for an average owner to deliver an appropriately timed and effective punisher to an off leash dog in a high distraction environment than it is to get a recall by positive reinforcement in that situation (what is an untrained dog doing off leash in a high distraction situation anyway? Stupidity?) My dog will be trained before I ask that of him. My students' dogs are trained before they ask that, and we add distractions and make sure the dog knows what to do before we give that kind of freedom. No matter how you train it, a solid behavior is habit. When the dog hears the cue or command, he's not thinking about other options. My pup had a solid recall in high distraction situations by 5 months. I can call him off rabbits. I can ask him to drop and not touch a bird carcass. All taught with positive reinforcement and clear communication. As to your whole "I wouldn't work unless you paid me", it ignores a great deal that is known about behavior and how a variable schedule of reinforcement makes it more durable, not less. Yeah. If you just stopped paying the dog, behavior would deteriorate. If you provide reinforcement on a variable schedule you have a dog who will give you a lot of behavior for a little bit of reward. Sort of like the guy who worked the same place as my husband, but lost his job because the casino wouldn't let him go to work. I think if you truly understood how this sort of training works and find it doesn't work for you, that would be a lot different then guessing what happens when you use it, and discount it based on ignorance about the process, or mouthing the platitudes you can gain on any "balanced trainers" list (yeah, I've lurked) I do not, for instance, need to put out videos discounting my competition's methods. What I do can stand on its own merit.


I'm not sure why you are so angry. I've tried to respectful in this conversation. As for me, I will sign off of this conversation. I believe you are probably very good at what you do, and I too know that my training stands on its own. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> I'm not sure why you are so angry. I've tried to respectful in this conversation. As for me, I will sign off of this conversation. I believe you are probably very good at what you do, and I too know that my training stands on its own. Feel free to have the last word.


Asking pointed questions isn't the same thing as being angry. But feel free to run and hide instead of answering them. It is sort of what I expected you to do from what I've seen of you. Easy to promote lies. Harder to discuss training. If your training truly could stand on its own, you wouldn't need to denigrate the way others train to promote it.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

I was hoping to get some actual answers too. I was enjoying this thread 

I went from balanced to postive (yes I agree the anxiety to figure things out isn't positive.. I am using in a colliquial sense) because it worked better for behaviour issues and in the competition ring.

It is a pet peeve of mine that most balanced or punishement based trainers feel the need to willfully (or is it truely ignorance?) miss construe how positive trainers work. I have heard the 'one tool' thing before, and have shook my head over it. I have loads of tools in my tool box.

Now the difference between punishement based training and positive training is that postitive training seems to take more creativity and thought on the part of the trainer. You can't force the dog to work, you have to build the desire to work. Punishement based systesm do things TO the dog. The dog is more or less a passive partner having things done to him and should not offer behaviours. (no speak unless spoken too) It is a much more ridgid system. I can see how coming from that mind set positive training might seem daunting or impossible. If you can't make the dog do something then how on earth do you get them to do things they don't like with cookies?  

Except thats not how it works. But so few punishement based/balanced trainers ever really look into it, or give it a go.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Dekka said:


> I was hoping to get some actual answers too. I was enjoying this thread
> 
> I went from balanced to postive (yes I agree the anxiety to figure things out isn't positive.. I am using in a colliquial sense) because it worked better for behaviour issues and in the competition ring.
> 
> ...


Actually I do lots of positive only training. Watch my videos on competition heeling. I don' t believe I have denigrated anyone, in fact I always try to respectful of others' views. You'll notice I also always use my real name, I don't feel the need to hide behind avatars. If anyone has any specific questions about my training I am more than happy to answer them. The only reason I joined this thread was to politely answer some questions about the above posted video. I have zero interest in getting engaged in a heated debate over whose methods are better, I think we've all been there and done that and know that we are unlikely to change each others minds. You can call it running if you want, but every body here knows my name and where to find me.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

I think the " one tool" statement as I put it in my video is also being taken out of context. I was using in a "positive" reference to PR training, simply stating that training with only positive forces one to get creative. Thus I think we are in agreement dekka


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

Tyler Muto said:


> Actually I do lots of positive only training. Watch my videos on competition heeling. I don' t believe I have denigrated anyone, in fact I always try to respectful of others' views. You'll notice I also always use my real name, I don't feel the need to hide behind avatars. If anyone has any specific questions about my training I am more than happy to answer them. The only reason I joined this thread was to politely answer some questions about the above posted video. I have zero interest in getting engaged in a heated debate over whose methods are better, I think we've all been there and done that and know that we are unlikely to change each others minds. You can call it running if you want, but every body here knows my name and where to find me.


I never said you were running.

Then how do you explain other things you say in your other videos?

I also never got heated, nor said one was better than another. Though I do firmly believe that supression is not the way to go, esp with aggression. I have worked with some pretty severe dogs through the rescue (all confirmed human biters) and most got worse because people tried to punish (finger jabs, alpha rolls, yelling, hitting etc) the aggression. I do think you need to deal with the underlying issues to fix the problem (the OP sounds like they have done a fantastic job)

Why do you assume its a headed discussion. I postulated why most balanced trainers I have come across, and I meet quite a few, can find the idea of positive based training when training the dog to do something that the dog is not goign to want to do a bit daunting, or unbelievable.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Dekka said:


> I never said you were running.
> 
> Then how do you explain other things you say in your other videos?
> 
> ...


Dekka, I apologize, the "heated discussion" remark wasn't in reference to you. I had no problem with your comment. I never said in any video that I was against positive only training in all contexts, the point I was trying to make ( and perhaps it didn't come across right ) is that I don't believe in a strict adherence to it, or an unwillingness to use anything else. I have no problem with positive only training when it's feasible, but I don't believe that any one approach (positive or negative) works for all cases all the time. That's what balanced training means to me. 
In regard to aggression, as I stated previously, we did not use any punishment to socialize drake. None.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

yes its possable I have 2. 

Happy-used to be dog and people aggressive(kids were the worst), she is still a little bitchy with dogs sometimes, but not bad, she can go to daycare and the dog park etc.. she is good with people now, and AMAZING with kids, not only does she no longer have the slightest hint of aggression toward kids, but she has helped several kids afraid of dogs overcome their fears. 

Rusty-used to be quite dog aggressive, he attacked dogs at random(my own included) he would wake up in the middle of the night and just start attacking my other dogs whil they slept! when we got past thatand I started working at the daycare, when I brought him with me there was only 2 dogs he could be around without attacking, so he pretty much sat in a kennel exept for playtimes with those couple dogs. eventually I got him to the point that only certain triggers(dogs annoyng him and intact males) caused him to attack, he still had the occasional relapse of unprovoked attacks though. these days he can go to the dog park, and play with everyone at the daycare, no random attacks and his triggers now simpley cause him to look to me to help him rather then immediate attack..he only had one incindent recently in which he did go after a dog that was annoying him, but that was my fault, I wasnt watching to rescue him from annoying dog, and he didn't attack viciously like he used to, he actually backed off on voice command. (he has never injured a dog BTW, all his fighting only ever resulted in HIM getting badly injured he liked to fight, he wasnt GOOD at it lol)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> I think the " one tool" statement as I put it in my video is also being taken out of context. I was using in a "positive" reference to PR training, simply stating that training with only positive forces one to get creative. Thus I think we are in agreement dekka


So, what is the "one tool" that positive reinforcement/progressive reinforcement trainers are dependent on? Are you familiar with schedules of reinforcement? Can you describe the ones you use?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> Actually I do lots of positive only training. Watch my videos on competition heeling. I don' t believe I have denigrated anyone, in fact I always try to respectful of others' views. You'll notice I also always use my real name, I don't feel the need to hide behind avatars. If anyone has any specific questions about my training I am more than happy to answer them. The only reason I joined this thread was to politely answer some questions about the above posted video. I have zero interest in getting engaged in a heated debate over whose methods are better, I think we've all been there and done that and know that we are unlikely to change each others minds. You can call it running if you want, but every body here knows my name and where to find me.


Avatars and screen names are how it's done on this forum. I was told that I was not allowed to post my website as it would be considered advertising. If you want to PM me, I'll be glad to provide you with my experience.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, what is the "one tool" that positive reinforcement/progressive reinforcement trainers are dependent on? Are you familiar with schedules of reinforcement? Can you describe the ones you use?


When I said "tool" I was referring to positive reinforcement in general. Also, in that statement I never said "dependent". What I said was "the good thing about the positive only movement is that when you only have one tool, you get really creative about how to use that tool, and we learned how to do things with positive reinforcement that we didn't know was possible before." 

Of course I am familiar with reinforment schedules. Anyone who has read a training book should be.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler, I notice your website doesn't list any credentials or titles beyond IACP and APDT membership (which only requires payment of dues). Any titles? Any professional certifications?


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Avatars and screen names are how it's done on this forum. I was told that I was not allowed to post my website as it would be considered advertising. If you want to PM me, I'll be glad to provide you with my experience.


I'm not questioning your experience or your skill. You appear to be knowledgeable. I do however find your tone in some posts to be insulting.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> When I said "tool" I was referring to positive reinforcement in general. Also, in that statement I never said "dependent". What I said was "the good thing about the positive only movement is that when you only have one tool, you get really creative about how to use that tool, and we learned how to do things with positive reinforcement that we didn't know was possible before."
> 
> Of course I am familiar with reinforment schedules. Anyone who has read a training book should be.


Positive reinforcement is a quadarant, not a tool. Most people who use it also use at least a bit of negative punishment (another quadrant) and some use creative or judicious application of negative reinforcement (another quadrant). Most also use extinction. So, how is it only "one tool?" So, what reinforcement schedules do you use in training?


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Tyler, I notice your website doesn't list any credentials or titles beyond IACP and APDT membership (which only requires payment of dues). Any titles? Any professional certifications?


I don't title my dogs, I have two certifications, both of which I think are Bull sh** which is why I don't parade them around. I've learned what I know through apprenticeships, seminars and hands on experience.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> I'm not questioning your experience or your skill. You appear to be knowledgeable. I do however find your tone in some posts to be insulting.


Well, I found your videos insulting so I guess we are even. So, what titles and credentials do you have? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Positive reinforcement is a quadarant, not a tool. Most people who use it also use at least a bit of negative punishment (another quadrant) and some use creative or judicious application of negative reinforcement (another quadrant). Most also use extinction. So, how is it only "one tool?" So, what reinforcement schedules do you use in training?


I used "tool" loosely, get over it. As to reinforcement schedules, if I though your where asking because you didn't know I would happily answer. But your tone suggests that you feel I need to prove something to you, which I find insulting. If I didn't know how to use reinforcement schedules I wouldn't be successful so let's stop being childish.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> I don't title my dogs, I have two certifications, both of which I think are Bull sh** which is why I don't parade them around. I've learned what I know through apprenticeships, seminars and hands on experience.


I'd agree that APDT and IACP are pretty BS, but neither is a certification. They are simply memberships. Anything else on your resume? Why should people pay you for your knowledge?



Tyler Muto said:


> I used "tool" loosely, get over it. .


You seem to use lots of things loosely.


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'd agree that APDT and IACP are pretty BS, but neither is a certification. They are simply memberships. Anything else on your resume? Why should people pay you for your knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to use lots of things loosely.


I never said iacp or apdt were certifications. Simply said I had 2, didn't say those were them. 
People pay me because I'm good at what I do, no different than you.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> I never said iacp or apdt were certifications. Simply said I had 2, didn't say those were them.
> .


Would one be through Fred Hassen? (Sit Means Sit)?


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Would one be through Fred Hassen? (Sit Means Sit)?


Yep, an organization which I gladly disassociated myself with for obvious reasons. Trust me, my feelings about him are probably the same as yours.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tyler Muto said:


> Yep, an organization which I gladly disassociated myself with for obvious reasons. Trust me, my feelings about him are probably the same as yours.


Might want to update your website


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Might want to update your website


Its funny you say that because I was litterally just having that conversation with my wife tonight. The content hasn't been updated in years.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Only professional trainers get to be called trainers? I guess regular pet/hunting dog owners who do their own training can't be classified as an R+ trainer or the opposite (I don't know what to call non-positive trainers. Everything seems to be wrong according to somebody)? Even if they've had/trained a lot of dogs in their lives? Sorry, I just don't know what to call them then. "Random dog-owning guys who like to hunt and train their own dogs without using R+, or at least like to make it sound that way", maybe. Seems cumbersome but I'll try to remember.
> 
> I don't even know of any professional trainers (OK, I looked in the Yellow Pages. There are 2 listed and the phone book is for this entire half of the state), I think the majority of dog owners train their own dogs. And I am inclined to classify them according to what style of training they prefer.


No you are free to call them anything you want, I was just curious, after spending 16 months (summer training trips) 2 months a year with a string of bird dogs late 60s and early 70s I had never met another SD based trainer. From your reply I thought there must be psychotic trainers falling out of trees. I thought that maybe in the passing years there was a huge influx of the above mentioned trainers into your area.

I'm glad to hear you could only find 2 trainers in your half the state and there is a chance they're not of the psychotic type. 

As far as the hobby/amateur type trainers I would advise you to give them DF's web address so they may learn new training methods.

I suppose instead of blaming your replies which sometimes in the past have had very skewed statistics and slanted info, I will blame myself for jumping to the conclusion that you were just jumping on professional trainers.

I would never call a home owner who fixes a leaky faucet a plumber, just a do it your-selfer (my word) That's just me'...


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

So, what titles and credentials do you have? >>>>

Im sorry if I "LOL" people but I have come to believe that I am not reading into anything, Pawz your tone is derogatory to everyone that doesn't agree w you. As for the Titles tyler may have? would that really sway you? I know someone who has the highest OB titled beagle in the country she follows koehler type training. does that make you want to train like her? should it?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Tyler, what type of dogs does the pack to basics work best on? If a dog lets say more aggressive towards the other dogs than the one in this vid seems to be are they a candidate? what steps are taken too assure the safety of the dogs ex. are muzzles used?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I would never call a home owner who fixes a leaky faucet a plumber, just a do it your-selfer (my word) That's just me'...


you really need to throw these quotes in a sig or something. Wvaskoisms


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

So back on track.. we had another little victory this morning. I got a ride home from my coworker this morning (I work midnights) and I decided to be bold and ask my coworker to come in and meet Brody because he's exactly the type of person Brody reacts most violently to (young male, tattoos, in good physical shape as Brody loves fat men) and he's very interested in dogs and dog behavior and has been asking to meet Brody for a while. I told him that he would sit in the living room while Brody was crated, and if Brody didn't go crazy in his den, I would bring him out and they would get to meet. There were a few quiet growls and a little whining when he first came in, but he quickly settled down and I had Rick (my coworker) say "good boy", toss a treat, and praise him when he's quiet so he gets used to his voice and learns that good things come from Rick. Pretty soon, whenever Rick said "good boy" I would hear Brody's tail banging against the side of the crate, so I knew he was learning and ready to come out.

I took Brody out on a 6 foot leash and sat down on the couch pretty close to the chair Rick was sitting on. Brody sniffed Rick cautiously but backed away if Rick moved at all. I moved farther away from Rick to increase Brody's threshold distance and asked Rick to toss Brody more cheese if he even looked in his direction. By the end of the hour visit, Brody was doing sits for Rick and letting him hold his leash, but would politely move away if Rick tried to touch him or if Rick held eye contact too long. He was relaxed, focus, and listened very well. I would LOVE to do more controlled meetings with people like this because it worked so well and I think both Brody and I benefited from today's success. It's so awesome to see Brody begin to figure out that there's no reason for him to act the way he used to act and use his brain to figure out ways to cope with his fears instead of me telling Brody that he shouldn't behave the way he used to behave and that he HAS to tolerate things that scare him.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that people who train dogs for hunting ARE trainers. If someone plumbs their entire house (and builds new houses repeatedly to plumb) then yes to me they are a 'plumber'. Not the best of analogies as plumbing is different than training your companion animal in many ways.

To Tyler:

Do you believe in pack theory? If so what do you say about the studies that show that dogs, while social and gregarious are not pack animals?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I would LOVE to do more controlled meetings with people like this because it worked so well>>>>>

being a mostly non-social creature myself I always find it hard to come up w the multitude of willing participants for such things, but it sound like you are on the right track


I think that people who train dogs for hunting ARE trainers>>>>>

I think that would be an over generalization. If they trained a couple dogs by reading a book are they trainers? some dogs are quite instinctual w non demanding owners so there training is limited. Still others view a hunting dog as a working animal and if unable to do its job - sayonara


----------



## Tyler Muto (Oct 27, 2011)

The pack to basics program can work with work with virtually any case. But keep in mind it's not a "method" it's a program that helps educate people on everything from the evaluation to pre training to successfully running a group of dogs. I really can't do it justice in this format. If anyone truely wants to learn I would strongly reccomend contacting Chad Mackin, or attending one of his workshops. 
Drake was an intense case. He had seriously injured dogs in the past, and only days before the evaluation he attacked one of the small dogs that are in the end of the video. You can't see it in the film, but she has a scar on her back the size of my palm. The vet told them that if he would have gotten the other dog who was skinnier, he probably would have killed her. 
In regard to "pack theory" I believe this is another one of those issues that can be interpreted in varying ways. I think the dominance theory as it is popularly construed is wildly misguided. I do however believe that dogs are social creatures and as such they have certain social instincts and drives that contribute to driving their behavior. IMO most dogs really want to be social (not to dominate everyone in sight) and antisocial behavior usually stems from insecurity not dominance.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

It's weird because I have learned so much from people in the real world: possibly more than from any of the "teachers" I had in classes yet I do not give those folks the title of being a teacher. To me, a "teacher" is someone who gets paid to share information with people enrolled to receive the information. 

I think if you replace teacher with trainer and people with dogs, my previous statement still holds true.

I'm not Tyler but "pack theory" is one of the few ideas in dog training that will make me judge a trainer negatively and immediately exclude them from my own idea of a good trainer. Tell me you use e-collars and prongs? I won't bring my dogs to you, however I won't think of you as a bad trainer and if it works for you and your clients, all the power to you. Dogs are getting trained some way that actually does have scientific backing. This keeps them out of shelters and they may be decently behaved in public therefore not annoying me at the park or pet store. Tell me my dog growls at people because I'm not a strong enough "pack leader" and that eating before him and making him walk behind me when we go for a walk will make him stop growling.. I may just laugh in your face. These are rituals that are almost superstitious in nature (especially the way the "believers" adhere to them) and have about as much validity and scientific backing as an old wives tale. 

Amongst one another, there is a clear pecking order between my four pups. They just kind of "know" what's important to whom and when to back off without any silly rituals or any force at all involved. People aren't dogs and I would have no way of communicating to my dogs "clipping your nails is as important to me as the warm spot on the couch is to Hudson, so please just let me do it without a fight like you let Hudson take your spot without a fight."


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I think that people who train dogs for hunting ARE trainers. If someone plumbs their entire house (and builds new houses repeatedly to plumb) then yes to me they are a 'plumber'. Not the best of analogies as plumbing is different than training your companion animal in many ways.


Well I got no argument with what you call trainers as that's a personal choice. In my travels I have met many hunter/trainers that should not be allowed near a dog lead, near a dog, near a shotgun, or any upland game. I also have met some great amateur trainers.

Once you start collecting money for training or plumbing or even home building you have elevated to a different level. As far as analogies, I never claim that mine are the best or even near the top, I just write what I think people can understand. Working with a living, breathing, feeling creature is much harder than plumbing stuff but that could be just me patting myself on the back.



> you really need to throw these quotes in a sig or something. Wvaskoisms


Oh! Oh! Appraisal of my replies do go from one extreme to another.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

jiml said:


> being a mostly non-social creature myself I always find it hard to come up w the multitude of willing participants for such things, but it sound like you are on the right track


I actually hate the vast majority of people I meet, so it's pretty special that I have a bunch of willing participants that just so happen to work with me. Scientists/lab geeks are always up for problem solving and giving their opinions about things, even if there's a possibility of bodily harm. They view him as a project, and when I told them that he's more or less a living skinner box without the electricity in the way that we're using operant conditioning to train him, their nerd radar went off the charts and they all want to come help train Brody now.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> I actually hate the vast majority of people I meet, so it's pretty special that I have a bunch of willing participants that just so happen to work with me. Scientists/lab geeks are always up for problem solving and giving their opinions about things, even if there's a possibility of bodily harm. They view him as a project, and when I told them that he's more or less a living skinner box without the electricity in the way that we're using operant conditioning to train him, their nerd radar went off the charts and they all want to come help train Brody now.



That is awesome! I almost got a little teary eyed reading about Brody's recent progress with your coworker. It sounds like he is really starting to understand that if he comes to you everyone wins. He gets released from social pressure and the person walks away with their body in one piece. Go Brody! If I was in your area I would so come meet Brody and help him along with his socialization. 

One thing I have found in my own misadventures with human fearful dogs is that the people are really the problem. I too am an anti social creature but I understand the importance of meeting as many different people, and especially men, as possible. However, my explanation of how to approach Ozzie and what to do and not to do seem to fall on deaf ears. I say don't approach him, and the next thing I know I am body blocking a full size human trying to get them to stop chasing my scared dog around. Anyone (Lindbert especially) have any suggestions for how to deal with the human half of counter conditioning? 

As far as the original question... I don't know but I would say no. I think it largely depends on what you mean by 'recover'. Ozzie is my first fearful/reactive dog and it took me nearly 3 years to realize that he is who he is. He has a very distinct personality and I can help him to not feel afraid but I am not going to turn him into Lassie. To think I could is foolish and damaging to our relationship. 

Oh, and that lady who said all that nonsense to you needs to shut her mouth. I would like to give her a what for, real quick. What kind of person says something like that to a complete stranger? Don't even think twice about it Lindbert. I think you and Brody are doing amazing (really and truly) and I am inspired by your progress. He is very lucky to have you to guide him and show him that humans aren't so bad after all. 

I am officially in the Brody fan club.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> So, what titles and credentials do you have? >>>>
> 
> Im sorry if I "LOL" people but I have come to believe that I am not reading into anything, Pawz your tone is derogatory to everyone that doesn't agree w you. As for the Titles tyler may have? would that really sway you? I know someone who has the highest OB titled beagle in the country she follows koehler type training. does that make you want to train like her? should it?


My tone is derrogatory towards so-called professionals who feel they have to lie about how positive reinforcement training works to promote their own brand. I don't think titles are everything (and I earned some titles doing Koehler type training as well) I do think a professional should have professional credentials of some sort. Through education (formal, though seminars are useful and can be used for accreditation as CEUs) through testing (for instance CPDT) or through practical experience (titling or certifying dogs in the areas where you claim to be an expert) One should be willing to put their money where their mouth is and prove that they are good at what they do. Dog training is one of the few professions where there is no education required and no qualifications to be a professional. You just hang out your shingle and you is one.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

+two said:


> That is awesome! I almost got a little teary eyed reading about Brody's recent progress with your coworker. It sounds like he is really starting to understand that if he comes to you everyone wins. He gets released from social pressure and the person walks away with their body in one piece. Go Brody! If I was in your area I would so come meet Brody and help him along with his socialization.
> 
> One thing I have found in my own misadventures with human fearful dogs is that the people are really the problem. I too am an anti social creature but I understand the importance of meeting as many different people, and especially men, as possible. However, my explanation of how to approach Ozzie and what to do and not to do seem to fall on deaf ears. I say don't approach him, and the next thing I know I am body blocking a full size human trying to get them to stop chasing my scared dog around. Anyone (Lindbert especially) have any suggestions for how to deal with the human half of counter conditioning?
> 
> ...


So the very first step towards a successful socialization program with a human fearful dog is to be honest and recognize what your dog is okay with and what he needs work on. This sounds much easier than it is and making a list over a period of about a week to 10 days was instrumental in figuring out everything we had going on. Once you have a concrete idea of likes/dislikes/fears/areas of confidence, you can then begin to formulate a plan.

Next step is to teach your dog skills and behaviors that will help him and you when you are in social situations. Our most commonly used behaviors are "go sniff" which has Brody sniffing the ground and serves as a great diffuser if Brody finds himself in an awkward and tense social interaction with another dog, "uh oh" which means IMMEDIATELY get in heel position and turn around to walk or even run away from something that can potentially be triggering, "look at that" which means he can look at and get exposure and experience to something that was once scary to him, but he knows there is no social pressure for him to approach it and we are ONLY looking at it from a safe distance, "go visit" which is somewhat of a release cue meaning he can approach a person calmly and make himself available for petting. He's finally confident enough to ignore "go visit" if he is uncomfortable with the person and I never force him to go. Finally, we use hand targeting a ton! I can use hand targeting to get Brody to look away from ANYTHING at any time because he finds hand targeting extremely rewarding in and of itself. It's a game he LOVES to play. 

The most important thing in my interaction with people is that I had to tell myself the following: Brody is MY dog and therefore I have every right to tell someone what they can and can't do around him. I don't have to justify it to them and it doesn't matter if they think there's something "wrong" with me or my dog. As long as I have him under control, there is nothing "wrong" with him or the situation. If I allow someone to do something that I know will end badly, I am losing control of the situation therefore losing control of the dog and that usually ends badly. It sounds so simple however it wasn't until my trainer told me this that I had the confidence to follow up with them and get quite vocal if I need to. 

If someone tries to pet him (I find Petsmart employees are the WORST with this) without me preparing him for it and making sure he's absolutely okay with that I will tell them "I really don't think it's going to end well if you do that." If they say "why, will he bite me?" I say "Probably not, but you don't want to see me angry if you upset him." The "uh oh" command is really useful for situations where the person isn't getting it. I get immediate attention on me so Brody can't even think about reacting towards the other person and we get away from the stimuli. It's a win-win situation. I don't allow people to pet him unless he approaches them and if they continue to approach us, turning around and walking the other way speaks volumes. I want every single interaction he has with people to be a GREAT one and it is my responsibility to be his advocate. I worked so hard to earn this level of trust with him and I need to keep working to maintain it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I took Brody out on a 6 foot leash and sat down on the couch pretty close to the chair Rick was sitting on. Brody sniffed Rick cautiously but backed away if Rick moved at all. I moved farther away from Rick to increase Brody's threshold distance and asked Rick to toss Brody more cheese if he even looked in his direction. By the end of the hour visit, Brody was doing sits for Rick and letting him hold his leash, but would politely move away if Rick tried to touch him or if Rick held eye contact too long. He was relaxed, focus, and listened very well. I would LOVE to do more controlled meetings with people like this because it worked so well and I think both Brody and I benefited from today's success. It's so awesome to see Brody begin to figure out that there's no reason for him to act the way he used to act and use his brain to figure out ways to cope with his fears instead of me telling Brody that he shouldn't behave the way he used to behave and that he HAS to tolerate things that scare him.


Great job and and oozes with common sense.



> I think that would be an over generalization. If they trained a couple dogs by reading a book are they trainers? some dogs are quite instinctual w non demanding owners so there training is limited. Still others view a hunting dog as a working animal and if unable to do its job


Yes I think maybe 25 dogs trained and a person could call themselves a trainer, training and collecting money for the 26th dog may be a little difficult, it kinda depends on how the 1st 25 looked. Now it's 25 books read and maybe one dog trained and there are people calling themselves trainers. Oh I'm sorry I forgot YouTube. I believe the breakdown is 10 viewed YouTubes and 1 dog trained.

This has always been and will continue to be,
I've told the story on DF about the 2 young men who each purchased a GSD pup from our kennel and when pups were 6 months old brought them back for training and 1 year after training was done each guy left the area, one went to Denver the other to Nashville and shortly after started their own obedience classes. To the best of my knowledge neither one ever trained a dog or maybe not even read a book on the subject. But they had a good line of bullsh*t and people actually spent money for whatever instruction they received.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Well I got no argument with what you call trainers as that's a personal choice. In my travels I have met many hunter/trainers that should not be allowed near a dog lead, near a dog, near a shotgun, or any upland game. I also have met some great amateur trainers.
> 
> Once you start collecting money for training or plumbing or even home building you have elevated to a different level. As far as analogies, I never claim that mine are the best or even near the top, I just write what I think people can understand. Working with a living, breathing, feeling creature is much harder than plumbing stuff but that could be just me patting myself on the back.
> 
> ...


Except I have met many a person who takes money who is just as bad if not worse than the hunting dog trainers around here.

Trainer means to train. If you are training animals then yes you are a trainer. That doesn't make you a decent one then  Taking someone's money in no way makes you better, or even more accountable. It might just mean you are great at marketing (look at parelli in horses.. not very good at training.. awesome at marketing)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> As far as the original question... I don't know but I would say no. I think it largely depends on what you mean by 'recover'. Ozzie is my first fearful/reactive dog and it took me nearly 3 years to realize that he is who he is. He has a very distinct personality and I can help him to not feel afraid but I am not going to turn him into Lassie. To think I could is foolish and damaging to our relationship.
> .


No, you won't turn him into Lassie, but a more confident Ozzie. I think it is important to remember that Lassie isn't really Lassie either, but a dog trained to respond to cues in a way that goes with the "Lassie" story-line, which is the writer's ideal of the perfect dog.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

My tone is derrogatory towards so-called professionals who feel they have to lie about how positive reinforcement training works to promote their own brand.>>>>>

I posted a vid that I thought was pertinent to the discussion. I also emailed the trainer because I thaught it would be interesting to see if he would answer questions about the vid and to be polite. You are the one that brought this totally off topic and made it about you and your philosophy on dog training in general. I dont think the vid posted had anything to do w aversives/vspositive in training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> My tone is derrogatory towards so-called professionals who feel they have to lie about how positive reinforcement training works to promote their own brand.>>>>>
> 
> I posted a vid that I thought was pertinent to the discussion. I also emailed the trainer because I thaught it would be interesting to see if he would answer questions about the vid and to be polite. You are the one that brought this totally off topic and made it about you and your philosophy on dog training in general. I dont think the vid posted had anything to do w aversives/vspositive in training.


Shrug. As far as I can see, the topic is still pretty much on topic. You also posted the video where he was bashing positive reinforcement based training. If people put their philosophies (such as they are) out there, people will comment on them.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Dekka said:


> Except I have met many a person who takes money who is just as bad if not worse than the hunting dog trainers around here.
> 
> Trainer means to train. If you are training animals then yes you are a trainer. That doesn't make you a decent one then  Taking someone's money in no way makes you better, or even more accountable. It might just mean you are great at marketing (look at parelli in horses.. not very good at training.. awesome at marketing)


Well we differ cause I believe a trainer should be competent before he/she carries a trainer label. Now being a realist I know thats not the way it works but it's more realistic than the 2 idiots who decided to open training courses with no knowledge at all.

If my wife put a band-aid on me it does not mean she's magically become a nurse, I think the same rule applies with somebody walking around with a dog on a lead they do not magically become a dog trainer.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> If someone tries to pet him (I find Petsmart employees are the WORST with this) without me preparing him for it and making sure he's absolutely okay with that I will tell them "I really don't think it's going to end well if you do that." If they say "why, will he bite me?" I say "Probably not, but you don't want to see me angry if you upset him." The "uh oh" command is really useful for situations where the person isn't getting it.


I really admire you for being able to deal with the problem with Brody, but even more so the people! It is ludicrous the number of people that just assume its ok to wander up to any dog. Its only caused me issues in basic training not to jump up on strangers (or even friends, who aren't as cooperative as I would like). I can only imagine dealing with a dog that is reactive and just jumping up and rudeness is the least of your worries. Congratulations to you and to Brody on your successes so far. I don't think there is 100% recovery for it (but what do I know!), but I'm sure you're going to have even more successes!!  I'm part of the fan club too!!



Pawzk9 said:


> My tone is derrogatory towards so-called professionals who feel they have to lie about how positive reinforcement training works to promote their own brand.


 Sorry Pawz. I do find you have a TON of great things to say, given great advice to lots of people, and obviously have a lot of very worthy experience. But you do come across....maybe not derogatory, but at least condescending to those who aren't professionals who may be looking at methods that aren't in line with yours. Some of it may be the way things come across in type, some of it may be for real. I try to give the benefit of the doubt because it is obvious that you know a great deal. its just unfortunate that I'm seeing the potential for a very good and specific discussion on different methods for dealing with reactive dogs and it seems to be more about justifying general methods, not about the methods themselves. I've watched many of Tyler's videos and like a lot of what he has done, whether I like his personal opinions on things is inconsequential, his results look to be good and I have no issues with his methods that I have seen or read so far, I would go to him as a trainer. I would love to see a discussion that clearly argues the different types of methods, not the trainers "so-called" professionalism. I think you and Tyler could have a LOT to say that all of us could learn from, both intellectually and as "trainers" to our own dogs. 
Could you PM me with your webpage (or Youtube channel) Pawz. I am sincerely interested in looking at lots of different methods!


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Well we differ cause I believe a trainer should be competent before he/she carries a trainer label. Now being a realist I know thats not the way it works but it's more realistic than the 2 idiots who decided to open training courses with no knowledge at all.
> 
> If my wife put a band-aid on me it does not mean she's magically become a nurse, I think the same rule applies with somebody walking around with a dog on a lead they do not magically become a dog trainer.


Except the diffence is that putting on bandaids isn't really what nurses do. Its more like saying just cause your wife does the duties of a nurse she is not one. And again that would be fair except there is no requirement of schooling to be a trainer. If you want a good comparison find a job where people learn on the job, not academically. As well as one that has no regulating body or standards...

The thing is that I dont' think that people who have trained hunting dogs all their lives should be met with such dismissal. They have trained dogs for a purpose repeatedly. That isn't to say I would take one of my dogs to them to learn agility or even basic manners. But then I wouldn't take my hunting dog to the top obedience trainer to learn how to hunt either.

As I said being a trainer has no actual meaning in most cases. There is no body regulating it. I know many a person who hangs out a shingle (metophorically speaking) and starts teachign classes. Or gets a job training at petsmart. Just because they get handed money in no way makes them any more 'real' than someone who trains their own dogs.

To me a trainer is someone who can train a dog (or horse, or elephant...) to do specific tasks, and can train multiple of those animals to do so. I might not like they way they train. But if the end result is an animal that performs the job at hand I am not going to say they aren't trainers. That would by silly.. they did the job.

More like back in the day when anyone could go become a nurse. If a woman went and helped with the war effort and was doing the job.. voila she was a nurse. Ipso facto if you can do the job then you are the title.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The thing is that I dont' think that people who have trained hunting dogs all their lives should be met with such dismissal. They have trained dogs for a purpose repeatedly. That isn't to say I would take one of my dogs to them to learn agility or even basic manners. But then I wouldn't take my hunting dog to the top obedience trainer to learn how to hunt either.


Who's dismissing them I spent the 1st 14 yrs campaigning GSPs in field trials and trained many personal upland game hunting dogs. I am dismissing the trainer/jerk who says he will kill his/her dog before using any positive type of training. I am an aversive type trainer but if a positive approach will solve a problem you don't kill the dog because you don't want to use it. In my mind that is not a trainer that is a Psychotic idiot and that's where all this trainer name calling started. If you can't understand that simple statement I got nothing left. If I thought I had to kiss a dog's butt to get the problem solved I would be kissing butt. As a trainer killing the dog is not an option.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

So you are saying that any person who puts a dog down due to behaviour issues is not a trainer?

I will say they are bad trainers and bad pet owners.. but to say bad trainer I have to admit they are trainers.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Jiml is the one who said that positive trainers would rather kill a dog than use non-positive methods. if that's true than I guess there can be crazies on both sides. I'm just pointing out my personal experience of the non-positive types.



jiml said:


> Still others view a hunting dog as a working animal and if unable to do its job - sayonara


 Exactly what I'm talking about (because, unless a dog is crippled, the only reason it would be unable to do its job would be ineffective training). Now, you said that your problem with positive trainers is that they do this (allegedly). Do you have the same objections if it's done to hunting dogs?


So, those who are saying that a trainer isn't a trainer unless he's a trainer. . .what makes someone a "real" trainer? Getting paid? Working with a certain number of dogs? Titles? Certification?


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Greater Swiss said:


> I really admire you for being able to deal with the problem with Brody, but even more so the people! It is ludicrous the number of people that just assume its ok to wander up to any dog. Its only caused me issues in basic training not to jump up on strangers (or even friends, who aren't as cooperative as I would like). I can only imagine dealing with a dog that is reactive and just jumping up and rudeness is the least of your worries. Congratulations to you and to Brody on your successes so far. I don't think there is 100% recovery for it (but what do I know!), but I'm sure you're going to have even more successes!!  I'm part of the fan club too!!


I am also one of the most reserved, mild-mannered people on the planet. I generally don't speak unless someone addresses me first and like to avoid conflict. When I was told that I had to learn to speak up for my dog or he would have no chance of being safe in public, I was terrified. I needed to find my voice and become a more assertive person. Surprisingly, I am finding that learning to speak up for my dog has translated to learning to speak up for myself and I'm seeing a ton of benefits in my professional and personal life. This dog is really changing my life and I'm as lucky to have him as he is lucky to have me!

I am fairly certain that I will have to continue to work with Brody for the rest of his life. My trainer and I discussed this earlier today and we agreed that this isn't something that a few classes will "cure" but she does feel that we will be able to have the skills for Brody to live a "normal" dog life and be safe in public by the end of our block of private sessions (we're on class 5 of 8.) She thinks he is ready for a normal group class (we tried one out last week and he was great!) for something "fun" to do together (she wants him to do rally or competition obedience.. I'm leaning more towards tricks or freestyle because I love to watch him come up with inventive things) that keeps him social with dogs and people in a safe, familiar atmosphere. I never thought we would get to this point; after this most recent relapse I gave up hope and pretty much resolved him to a life confined to my house and backyard. My husband saw his potential. He insisted that we do whatever it takes to fix Brody's behavior.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> So you are saying that any person who puts a dog down due to behaviour issues is not a trainer?


Not if the behavior issue could be solved with positive work and the trainer thought it was beneath his dignity or ego to do such work. Actually there are many trainers that that I have met in my travels that are trainers in name only so I eliminate the name calling and they just are not trainers. These are people that I have met/watched and have seen what they thought was a finished product. And I am done with this subject.

Now are there some dogs with behavior problems that should be PTSed of course there are and I have no qualms about that type of dog removal.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> I am also one of the most reserved, mild-mannered people on the planet. I generally don't speak unless someone addresses me first and like to avoid conflict. When I was told that I had to learn to speak up for my dog or he would have no chance of being safe in public, I was terrified. I needed to find my voice and become a more assertive person. Surprisingly, I am finding that learning to speak up for my dog has translated to learning to speak up for myself and I'm seeing a ton of benefits in my professional and personal life. This dog is really changing my life and I'm as lucky to have him as he is lucky to have me!
> 
> I am fairly certain that I will have to continue to work with Brody for the rest of his life. My trainer and I discussed this earlier today and we agreed that this isn't something that a few classes will "cure" but she does feel that we will be able to have the skills for Brody to live a "normal" dog life and be safe in public by the end of our block of private sessions (we're on class 5 of 8.) She thinks he is ready for a normal group class (we tried one out last week and he was great!) for something "fun" to do together (she wants him to do rally or competition obedience.. I'm leaning more towards tricks or freestyle because I love to watch him come up with inventive things) that keeps him social with dogs and people in a safe, familiar atmosphere. I never thought we would get to this point; after this most recent relapse I gave up hope and pretty much resolved him to a life confined to my house and backyard. My husband saw his potential. He insisted that we do whatever it takes to fix Brody's behavior.


Learning to be more assertive when you aren't overly outgoing is SO hard, and dogs tend to be magnets for people, making it hard, and you having to be so much more assertive certainly must be a challenge! You and Brody are very lucky to have one another, and it is fantastic that your husband is so supportive of the entire endeavor! I'm sure we've all read the posts where people have problems with their spouses and training (I won't say that I haven't had the odd minor issue myself, though all in all its been good). You may have to continue to work with Brody for the rest of his life, but really it seems like with the progress you have made, the things you will have to continue doing you probably won't even notice eventually. If you have another dog someday without any problems, you might end up questioning why that dog is so strange!


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

The funny thing is.. we have two other dogs AND a foster at the moment (totaling four) and my GSDs are all so "normal" that I barely mention them here. Don't get me wrong, they get as much attention and love as the insane project dog, it's just that right now Brody preoccupies the conversation because the other dog(s) are simply normal, happy, sociable pets. I had both Hudson and Hunter from the age of 8 weeks so they didn't live the hell Brody did at the hands of someone else. I'm glad I'm getting some experience with "difficult" dogs because it does make me appreciate how easy I've had it with Hudson and Hunter.

My husband wasn't a "dog person" when I met him, however he has come to be as fanatical if not more so than I am. He knew what he was getting into when he was dating me and he knows that the dogs are not something that can be compromised on. It's funny that he's been the one that's encouraged each addition to the family since he's come in my life.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Wow, LOTS of dogs (and a convert to dog loving ) Does (or did) Brody get reactive the same way or to the same degree if the other dogs are there too? Just curious if any restraint has been learned through example.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I really admire you for being able to deal with the problem with Brody, but even more so the people! It is ludicrous the number of people that just assume its ok to wander up to any dog. Its only caused me issues in basic training not to jump up on strangers (or even friends, who aren't as cooperative as I would like). I can only imagine dealing with a dog that is reactive and just jumping up and rudeness is the least of your worries. Congratulations to you and to Brody on your successes so far. I don't think there is 100% recovery for it (but what do I know!), but I'm sure you're going to have even more successes!!  I'm part of the fan club too!!
> 
> Sorry Pawz. I do find you have a TON of great things to say, given great advice to lots of people, and obviously have a lot of very worthy experience. But you do come across....maybe not derogatory, but at least condescending to those who aren't professionals who may be looking at methods that aren't in line with yours. Some of it may be the way things come across in type, some of it may be for real. I try to give the benefit of the doubt because it is obvious that you know a great deal. its just unfortunate that I'm seeing the potential for a very good and specific discussion on different methods for dealing with reactive dogs and it seems to be more about justifying general methods, not about the methods themselves. I've watched many of Tyler's videos and like a lot of what he has done, whether I like his personal opinions on things is inconsequential, his results look to be good and I have no issues with his methods that I have seen or read so far, I would go to him as a trainer. I would love to see a discussion that clearly argues the different types of methods, not the trainers "so-called" professionalism. I think you and Tyler could have a LOT to say that all of us could learn from, both intellectually and as "trainers" to our own dogs.
> Could you PM me with your webpage (or Youtube channel) Pawz. I am sincerely interested in looking at lots of different methods!


I am not condescending to non-professionals, though I say what think, and that makes people uncomfortable. Read into it what ever adjectives you want to. I emailed you a link to my website, but I suspect you already pretty well know how I train. I train the way I train because I think it is more effective than many other methods. I think this from personal experience with a variety of methods and styles. I hope others train in the way they find most effective and most humane, and do it on the basis of real experience. I will give you some advice, and I mean this in the nicest possible way. When you are new to dog training, most of what people say (even the Dog Whisperer) makes sense because it is all very new to you. At some point, for your dog's sake, you have to develop a philosophy about how you want to train your dog, and look for methods within that philosophy. Several times you have expressed your admiration for Emily Larlham. That's cool. I admire her methods and results too. But her training, like most dog training programs relies on a solid and well-thought out plan of action AND a philosophy. You are not going to get that kind of results - nothing even close if you approach dog training like the menu in a Chinese restaurant, and opt for one from column A (progressive reinforcement) and one from column B ("balanced" training). Sometimes more isn't better.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> She thinks he is ready for a normal group class (we tried one out last week and he was great!) for something "fun" to do together (she wants him to do rally or competition obedience.. I'm leaning more towards tricks or freestyle because I love to watch him come up with inventive things) that keeps him social with dogs and people in a safe, familiar atmosphere. I never thought we would get to this point; after this most recent relapse I gave up hope and pretty much resolved him to a life confined to my house and backyard. My husband saw his potential. He insisted that we do whatever it takes to fix Brody's behavior.


My vote is for Freestyle. The only problem with the sport is that live events are pretty spread out and non-frequent. (video competitions are also available, but I'm into the social aspects so prefer live) But the shaping and the input the dog gets to give are great for a dog who lacks confidence or has issues. Also, the participants are a very friendly and supportive group, and the events are set up to put less social pressure on the dogs. Because many freestylers have worked with dogs with issues, you'll seldom see anyone rush up on a dog, or allow a dog to get in another dog's face. Obedience, not quite so much so, and it can be a pretty clicquish group. (Not that I haven't enjoyed obedience, but it is a very different atmosphere)


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Greater Swiss said:


> Wow, LOTS of dogs (and a convert to dog loving ) Does (or did) Brody get reactive the same way or to the same degree if the other dogs are there too? Just curious if any restraint has been learned through example.


We don't bring Brody out in public at the same time as the sheppy boys (unless my husband is with me to handle them separately) because Hudson becomes really anxious and upset when Brody gets reactive (he turns into a typical whiny shepherd which he usually ISN'T) and Hunter idolizes Hudson so whatever Hudson does he tends to mimic. Two whiny shepherds plus a reactive dog isn't my idea of a good time!

Brody has developed an incredible relationship with our foster Charlotte. I have notice he is calmer and way more confident when she's with him. When I took them to Fido's Festival last weekend, it was his best public outing so far and I think she was a huge part of it. He wouldn't run the lure course unless she was running with him which was adorable. It's like he didn't want her to miss out on the fun; he would run about 20 yards and stop abruptly when he realized she wasn't right behind him so he would turn around and come back to us. When we let them both go at the same time, they both finished! There are pictures (quite adorable I must add) in the sports forum.



Pawzk9 said:


> My vote is for Freestyle. The only problem with the sport is that live events are pretty spread out and non-frequent. (video competitions are also available, but I'm into the social aspects so prefer live) But the shaping and the input the dog gets to give are great for a dog who lacks confidence or has issues. Also, the participants are a very friendly and supportive group, and the events are set up to put less social pressure on the dogs. Because many freestylers have worked with dogs with issues, you'll seldom see anyone rush up on a dog, or allow a dog to get in another dog's face. Obedience, not quite so much so, and it can be a pretty clicquish group. (Not that I haven't enjoyed obedience, but it is a very different atmosphere)


I would also be in it for the social aspect even more so than earning titles and such. Many of the people who came to our privates to be "dog bait" are in the freestyle class and it looks like a ton of fun. Brody is great with shaping and is in no way afraid to offer behaviors so I think he would do great. If we did do obedience or rally, it's highly unlikely that we would do AKC because I've gotten enough grief from people about entering my shepherds who are ILP, therefore inferior. They really don't have anything nice to say about mixed breeds entering so I would rather avoid the negativity. I've given some thought to APDT rally and one of the other obedience venues, but I think I want to do more creative sports/activities first to help boost his confidence and get him more secure around performing in a group setting.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Those pics are awesome Lindbert! Its cute that Brody wouldn't go without Charlotte, its going to be pretty rough if/when Charlotte has to go being a foster and all. Too bad the AKC people give you attitude about mixed breeds. One of the vets we go to (he's been a CKC judge) looked very disappointed when he found out we don't have papers for Caeda. He said they would likely let her participate though (if there ever are any events in the area). I hope if we ever give it a try we don't get that kind of attitude. I mean its one thing if you were asking to compete for "best in show" with a mix, but getting flack participating in the fun stuff....that is so disappointing


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Every day it seems less and less likely that Charlotte will be adopted. Old dogs don't get the interest that younger dogs do (she's 10 but in excellent shape!) This is the third time she was returned to me as well, so I think that means something... like this is meant to be her forever home. She's a really good dog but isn't cuddly or affectionate. It's hard to bond with her but she's starting to get to me (in a good way!)

My shepherds don't have papers either because Hudson was bred to be a guide dog and Hunter was bred on a farm and then given up at 10 weeks because the family that bought him lost interest. They are very obviously purebred GSDs, however they were looked upon very negatively at the few agility trials we were entered in. We switched to USDAA events and haven't had a problem with anyone there!


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> Every day it seems less and less likely that Charlotte will be adopted. Old dogs don't get the interest that younger dogs do (she's 10 but in excellent shape!)


I know its true about older dogs, and it really breaks my heart! I had always promised myself if I got a dog I would rescue an older dog because everybody is stuck on cute fuzzy puppies. Don't get me wrong, puppies are sweet, but I'm completely fine with full grown dogs. We would have done exactly that instead of getting Caeda but we figured it might be harder (if not impossible) to get the cats to take to a full grown dog and vice versa. I think it would be great if you kept Charlotte, she's obviously got a great friend and a great potential forever home 

It sucks about having pure breds and no papers so they still treat you badly. I had been wondering if there was a way to get papers for a dog that was purebred but didn't have the papers....guessing the answer is no  Bah.....they're great dogs papers or not right


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Charlotte is old and black so she has two huge strikes against her. She also has such a weird personality around humans but I think I'm FINALLY starting to understand her. She always seems so aloof even among people she really likes. She is the sweetest when she comes in bed with us. She loves to snuggle at my legs and use my ankles as a pillow 

The silly thing is both dogs have a recorded pedigree that goes back MANY generations but because they were bred for specific purposes (service dog and actual herding shepherd!) they didn't get registered with AKC. AKC is not the end all be all of purebred dogs but it seems like many people believe that to be true. They're great dogs and we have many other options so I'm not all that worried about it, it just soured me from the entire organization.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I really don't understand the problem with black dogs (when ever I think of black dogs I can't help but hum Led Zeppelin lol). I do hope you keep her, sounds like she is a good fit!

As for the AKC, I really don't know much about it but the more I read, the more I get the impression that there is an overwhelming opinion that AKC standards have "ruined" a lot of breeds. Its a pity that not having papers can cut you out of events or at least make them less fun due to attitudes, but all in all, if its not a bunch of alarmist hooey that I've read I know I'm not terribly hung up on it (especially since the supposed local CKC seems to be a unicorn around here....everybody has heard of it, but not many have actually seen it). Its odd that since they were bred for specific tasks they didn't get registered. A good dog is a good dog though!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I really don't understand the problem with black dogs (when ever I think of black dogs I can't help but hum Led Zeppelin lol). I do hope you keep her, sounds like she is a good fit!
> 
> As for the AKC, I really don't know much about it but the more I read, the more I get the impression that there is an overwhelming opinion that AKC standards have "ruined" a lot of breeds. Its a pity that not having papers can cut you out of events or at least make them less fun due to attitudes, but all in all, if its not a bunch of alarmist hooey that I've read I know I'm not terribly hung up on it (especially since the supposed local CKC seems to be a unicorn around here....everybody has heard of it, but not many have actually seen it). Its odd that since they were bred for specific tasks they didn't get registered. A good dog is a good dog though!


The AKC standard has "ruined" no breeds. However, the interpretation by judges and breeders has changed the appearance of many show dogs. There are avenues to allow dogs without papers to do sports, but attitudes of people who have superiority complexes can't be regulated. I'm actually amazed that any breeder who is breeding a breed as uncommon as the Swissy wouldn't provide their puppy buyers with papers.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The AKC standard has "ruined" no breeds. However, the interpretation by judges and breeders has changed the appearance of many show dogs. There are avenues to allow dogs without papers to do sports, but attitudes of people who have superiority complexes can't be regulated. I'm actually amazed that any breeder who is breeding a breed as uncommon as the Swissy wouldn't provide their puppy buyers with papers.


I've just read a fair bit saying that so much breeding has gone on for asthetics rather than health simply for the sake of having it look a particular way, bigger or smaller or whatever. I seem to recall something about pugs specifically. So ruined might not be the best term, but beyond what is ideal for their health in some cases. Of course the truly reputable breeders I'm sure would be as concerned with health as they would be with asthetics. 

As for Caeda, I won't claim we went to the most reputable breeder, we didn't go searching out a Swissy. She was planning on setting up as a swissy breeder, and had taken her bitch to meet the potential stud. She THOUGHT hers was out of her second heat, but apparently not. Accidental breeding, she was returning to work right when the puppies would have been hitting 9 weeks, so she had to let them go quickly, so charging full price wasn't an option. I don't think she was fully prepared. I didn't meet the father of the pups, but the bitch was very well tempered, great with her pups. How much I believe of what she told me, I don't know in retrospect. I know more now than I did then. I will say for her she called me several times to see how Caeda was and told me to call if we needed to, or at least to let her know how things were (I've unfortunatley lost her info). Heck, the first call was 5 minutes after I got in the door. She did take obvious good care of her dog and her puppies and wanted to make sure that the pups went to good homes. I remember her telling me if I wanted a male I could wait until the next day because she didn't think she was going to like the ones that had asked for one of the male pups. No matter what she said, the vet who is also a kennel club judge says Caeda appears purebred and is perfectly healthy and the second part is all I'm really worried about  We didn't pay purebred price, so I'm not going to complain about papers.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I've just read a fair bit saying that so much breeding has gone on for asthetics rather than health simply for the sake of having it look a particular way


Yes it's us humans, I remember when reading Black Beauty as a child that the carriage horses actually had their heads held high so it would look stylish (forget how it was done) it surely did not help the horses when pulling a heavy load but the aesthetics looked good.

I'm not in the loop now but I know the bench GSPs back in the 60s/70s were 2 to 4 inches taller than field stock. I'm betting not much as changed.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Another breakthrough.. Brody actually initiated play with a dog at the park today instead of just hanging by my side and watching everyone else play. It was a HUGE St. Bernard too! They had a great time and I got about 25 seconds of them playing on video. It actually looks like I have a "normal" dog here.







Edit: Hmm.. if you watch it on Youtube it's rotated but the embedded video is still sideways.


----------

