Katz on Diane Rehm - Now

[MrSnappy]

Huh! Now THAT was interesting.

 

RDM

[SoloRiver]

Since he's apparently reading, I'll repost what I just sent to Sheepdog-L here for good measure.

 

----------

 

In his Slate column on the subject of killing Orson, Katz muses, "I could take Orson to a veterinary school like Cornell's for more sophisticated testing—MRIs, brain scans, further blood work—to make certain that no medical issue (a tumor, for example) was causing his violent behavior." This option, he says, "was perhaps the most feasible. Go to Cornell, spend $5,000 or $6,000—I'd checked—for the elaborate workups necessary to determine if any hidden physical factor was causing this aggressive behavior. One vet had suggested Orson, when aroused, might be experiencing something akin to seizures."

 

Then he basically, not in so many words, says he didn't want to bother and decides to go with what he'd numbered "Option Four," which was "I could take him to my vet and have him killed."

 

Dogs with behavioral problems -- I hesitate to say something like "unstable temperaments," because this implies a lack of predictability and dogs like Orson are usually shockingly predictable if one is paying attention and knows what to look for -- are often difficult companions. But when they are well-loved and cherished members of the family, and have dedicated, compassionate, responsible owners, they can often be perfectly manageable, even treatable, and go on to live full and happy lives.

 

Orson's problem was that he was not cherished, and he did not have a dedicated compassionate owner. Orson had a narcissistic owner who valued Orson primarily for the glory Orson reflected upon himself.

 

What I find ultimately despicable is Katz's fundamental dishonesty. He tries to make it sound as if he had no choice. This is patently untrue. He tries to make it sound like he was acting in the best interests of his dog. This is also untrue. He was acting in his own interests. I could, well maybe not respect exactly, but accept the explanation of "I just didn't want to do it any more," but Katz chooses to be disingenuous instead. One could argue that Katz owed more to the dog on whose back Katz made his name, but that's neither here nor there. I despise liars. End of story. Katz's dishonesty is palpable throughout his Slate column. His excuses sound mealy and lame, and it sounds like many of his former fans picked up on this, given the provocative introduction to his newest book assuring them that "no dogs die" in it. The only good outcome of Orson's death might be that it finally allowed some people to see him for what he really is.

 

Owners euthanize dogs for behavioral problems quite often. In many cases, this is the best possible outcome given the situation, because dogs with behavioral problems, especially aggression, can rarely be rehomed responsibly. If an owner is not willing or able to do what is required to live responsibly with a problem dog, euthanasia is preferable to passing the dog from home to home, which is distressing for the dog and possibly dangerous to people. If an owner says, "I didn't want to do it" or "I couldn't do it and this is why" and is honest about it, I respect that choice even if it isn't necessarily the choice I'd make myself. But I don't respect liars, and Mr. Katz is certainly one of those.

 

-- Melanie

 

By the way, the opinions reflected here are my own and have nothing to do with the project I work for.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

All right, here's what I posted in response to the specific charge he makes, that we are snobs, from Sheepdog-L also:

 

I think that's one of the things that bothers me most about his representation of "us". I've found the stockdog community to be one of the least clique-ish groups of people I've ever known. If you've got a dog and and a genuine interest in learning about working stock, they are truly people who look past the person. Heck, even if you don't have a dog yet, most people will find a willingness to help them get started. Maybe more so,

 

Some of the people with the most possible reason to be snobbish are the least so. Big Hats here are kind and approachable as a rule. And some of the nicest and most generous people in the community are the ones who come directly from the UK training traditions, with generations of knowledge in their heads.

 

There's certainly lots and lots of politics afoot out there. But when it comes down to brass tacks, it's so rare that I've seen [politics actually] affect the acceptance of newbies for whatever reason.

 

I want to take this opportunity, in fact, to say how much I appreciate how open and adaptable this community is both in North

America and around the world. Thank goodness, quite the opposite of snobbish.

[amc]

I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said "the only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about".

 

You betcha.

[border_collie_crazy]

I've found the stockdog community to be one of the least clique-ish groups of people I've ever known. If you've got a dog and and a genuine interest in learning about working stock, they are truly people who look past the person. Heck, even if you don't have a dog yet, most people will find a willingness to help them get started. Maybe more so,

 

much agree'd, while I havent been able to do as much with stock as I would like, the "big hats" in my area personaly invited me and my BCs to their private clinic. it was a small group of farmers and trialers who got together every year for this, so they could work together on the correcting the small things, even though I had never even seen sheep before, they invited me and my BCs to join them, they helped me learn to work with my dogs, told storys about their first working dogs etc.. I have never met less snobbish group of people in my life.

[Bill Fosher]

Katz probably doesn't even know a big hat. Perhaps he doesn't even know what we mean when we discuss big hats. If his description of sheepdog training -- of head positions being molded by clickers, etc. -- is indeed what he believes is top-level sheepdog training, I don't blame him in the least for wanting no part of it. Perhaps there's a glimmer of sense in that. The problem is that he doesn't realize that what he has seen are people who know as little as he does doing as much harm as he does, but using different methods.

 

In case he is reading this, let me say that my understanding of a very common thread that runs through the methods of all the best sheepdog trainers both in the UK and here, is that you give the dog the freedom to think. The dog can chose right and wrong. The right is permitted and the wrong is corrected.

 

That sounds like a very simple concept, and it is. The hard part is learning when the dog is right and how to correct it when it does wrong. Based on the three videos of Katz working his dogs that I have seen, it appears that he is clueless about these two points. His dogs did plenty wrong and he didn't say a word about it. He's also perhaps a little dishonest when he makes statements like "Izzy has never put his mouth on sheep." In those videos I saw both dogs put their mouths on sheep, so even though I don't know which one is Izzy and which one is Rose, I know that Izzy has put his mouth on sheep. More importantly, both dogs take cheap shots -- whatever gripping they are doing is uncalled for. The sheep are harassed and Katz's stockmanship is abominable.

 

I will not argue with his contention that his dogs are happy. They clearly are enjoying themselves. I have no information about whether they are healthy as he repeated asserts. But they are not well-trained. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are barely started, based on what I have seen on the videos that he has posted.

 

He repeatedly says that Border collie snobs think that people like him should not own Border collies, and I guess that makes me one (depsite the fact that I am not well dressed and have only been to the UK once and own only American-born dogs). He seems to think that owning a small flock of sheep and 110 acres qualifies him. It would be much better if he spent a little time doing the sort of apprenticeship that is generally required of experts. I have been living with and working Border collies for nearly 15 years now, and I am aware that I am nearly the point where I know most of the questions, but very few of the answers. Katz doesn't even know that there are questions he doesn't know, let alone that he doesn't know the answers.

 

Of course, his response to this would be that he doesn't claim to be a dog expert. But we all know that's just a fig leaf he hides behind when he gets called on some of the bad advice and examples that he doles out. He does claim to be an expert, and he doesn't seem to think that anyone else has anything to teach him. He does not want to learn. He wants to live in his fantasy land where Rose is the greatest sheepdog that ever was, publish books about it, look down his nose at the locals (who, incidentally could also teach him a thing or two), and figure out ways to persuade his wife to visit him at least once every couple of weeks.

 

I have to admit that I think it's pretty cool that there's a link from Wikipedia to a thread in which I say that Katz is neither an author nor a dog trainer. "He is a boil on the buttocks of both trades. He is a charlatan." Those are words that I stand by.

[juliepoudrier]

Hmmm...something I think folks have overlooked, but Bill F. touched on is that when I read Katz' "border collie snobs" comment, I didn't even begin to think it applied to me or anyone like me (us)--so I took no offense--as the things he attributes to such people all seem to be part of the KC culture of sheepdog training. I'm not saying he doesn't dismiss this border collie community as well, but I don't really pay attention to him, so I wouldn't know. But being dismissive of training working dogs with clickers, etc., is certainly correct, IMO, even if the path by which one arrived at that conclusion was an erroneous one (that is, his antipathy toward such people and their training techniques certainly isn't rooted in a knowledge of the correct way of training a stockdog, so although he arrived at a "correct" conclusion, how he got there is a mystery).

 

Oh well. As a writer by profession, I wish I had had the sense to make scads of money off the topic before he did.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

I have to admit I was stunned when I saw Katz's description of a border collie snob:

 

Border collie snobs are invariably well dressed. They travel frequently

through Scotland and Ireland and know the names of all the great European

herding dogs. The true BCS favor short-haired border collies because the

long-haired ones get their fur caught on burrs and brambles on the moors.

They tend not to favor a variety of approaches to training their dogs but

adopt uniform--and very rigid--methods. Those dogs you see winning ribbons

on TV don't get there by relaxing and finding their own way. Every move

they make--the way they sit, at what distance from the sheep, how they hold

their heads--results from intense, almost relentless training. I used to

watch in amazement as trainers waited until a dog's head was pointed in

precisely the right direction, then click a clicker, over and over again.

 

He's been using this term for a long time now, and I thought I knew exactly what he meant by it. I guess not. This is a description of no one that exists on the face of the earth, AFAIK. True, the only trainer he ever worked with did probably train this way, but he had coined and used "border collie snob" back when he was still singing her praises. He didn't use it to refer to her, but to vaguely-perceived other people he thought looked down on her.

 

I truly believe that he is so self-absorbed he simply does not pay any attention at all to anything anyone says to him. He has steadfastly refused any exposure to real sheepdog trainers, and I doubt very much that he has ever been to a real sheepdog trial. He simply doesn't want to know, and this is the bizarre result. He just makes up what suits him. "There are people out there who look down on me (and you, dear reader). They are border collie snobs. They are tall and thin and elegantly dressed. They think they know more than I (and you, dear reader), and they grind their dogs into robots just so they can win ribbons on TV. They don't think I should even have a border collie (or you, dear reader) because I haven't gotten my dogs from Scotland and don't like herding trials, or because I train my dogs myself." I have never met anyone who says that you shouldn't have a border collie if you don't get the dog from Scotland, or if you don't like herding trials, or if you train the dog yourself. Never. I don't believe there IS anyone who thinks that.

 

But Katz has never let regard for the truth get in the way of the story he wants to tell.

[SoloRiver]

I don't get the part about "winning ribbons on TV." When has a sheepdog trial of any kind been televised, ever?

[Eileen Stein]

Good question. But too reality based.

[Shetlander]

But Katz has never let regard for the truth get in the way of the story he wants to tell.

 

That setence perfectly sums up his writing. Even back when I liked Katz for the most part (A Dog Year) and never thought I'd own a BC and knew nothing about sheep herding, I was bothered by all the inconsistencies in what he wrote. Over time, I came to the conclusion that he is a very dishonest writer -- supposedly writing real life essays and books but changing the facts to suit whatever point he wants to make.

 

And now even with the little bit of exposure I've had to sheep herding, I can see what a bunch of drivel Katz is writing about how he "trained" Rose and how people come from miles around to see what a fabulous sheep dog she is. By his second lesson, Quinn was doing better than what I saw of Rose on the first video. I'm not saying Quinn wouldn't have liked to go after a sheep's neck at his first lesson, but he learned very quickly that wasn't an option.