MUST READ..interesting, should spark some discussion

[waffles]

I wasn't asking about that one trainer but in general, why do you think some positive trainers recommend killing the dog when they could have done more to help or at least just said they can't help and not mention euthanizing? I just thought that since you live in the world of dog training that maybe you had this discussion with other trainers on when to recommend it and when to not say anything to a client. Was just looking for an insiders perspective.

 

I obviously know that some dogs are beyond help and that trainers of all persuasions recommend euthanasia to certain dogs. Just thought you might have an idea as to why some people who say they are positive trainers and would never do anything negative to a dog would recommend something so harsh as death, when many times it is not warranted? Do they not want the clients going to other trainers or not want to look bad if the dog does harm someone, then it looks poorly on their ability to train? Or do they somehow want to be nice and spare the client of the decision or spare them a possible law suit?

Glad to hear you recommend other options but clearly many trainers of any kind seem to jump the gun with the recommendation of death. Was looking for your opinion on why-why not just say nothing to the client or recommend a vet behaviorist?

[Root Beer]

I wasn't asking about that one trainer but in general, why do you think some positive trainers recommend killing the dog when they could have done more to help or at least just said they can't help and not mention euthanizing? I just thought that since you live in the world of dog training that maybe you had this discussion with other trainers on when to recommend it and when to not say anything to a client. Was just looking for an insiders perspective.

 

I would not presume that any trainer who recommended euthanizing a dog would have done so when he or she could have done more and is aware of that fact.

 

Any trainer who would recommend euthanasia when he or she is very aware of the fact that more can be done would be, in my opinion, unethical. That would be completely independent of the training methodogy that he or she would use.

 

No +R trainer that I have ever spoken with recommends euthanasia out of hand. Any and every one that I know personally would absolutely recommend help from a vet behaviorist (or possibly another reputable trainer who has a track record of success with similar dogs) if the point had been reached where he or she could not help the dog further.

 

Personally, I have never reached a point with any dog where I could not do any more to help. I have gotten to that point on several occasions with people who have chosen not to be open to a +R based approach (I am not the trainer for you if you specifically do not want to learn a +R based approach since that is the training that I have experience and success with and I am not going to teach someone to use a technique that I don't use). That said, I have never recommended euthanasia in those cases.

 

But no, I would not be the insider who could give you that particular perspective. I have yet to meet these +R trainers who recommend euthanisia in cases such as you have described.

 

 

Just thought you might have an idea as to why some people who say they are positive trainers and would never do anything negative to a dog would recommend something so harsh as death, when many times it is not warranted?

 

I could not give you any insight into why any tainer, regardless of training approach, would recommend death when it is not warranted. I don't see that as a case of a +R trainer being "negative", but as simply unethical.

 

If the dog really can be helped through training and the trainer knows it, the ethical thing to do is help the client find a professional who can help. That actually has nothing to do with being "positive" per se. I would expect any trainer to do that.

 

 

Do they not want the clients going to other trainers or not want to look bad if the dog does harm someone, then it looks poorly on their ability to train? Or do they somehow want to be nice and spare the client of the decision or spare them a possible law suit?

 

I would say that the only people who could verify this speculation are those who recommend euthanasia when it is not warranted. Any of us here could come up with possibilities, but those who do so are the only ones who really know.

 

Of course, it is possible that at least some of these trainers actually have more information than you or I have been privy to. It is possible that the trainer honestly assessed the situation and, based on the information at hand, did judge that the dog could not be helped through training.

 

Granted, I would still say that it would still be correct to recommend a consult with a vet behaviorist, at the very least. But I am not going to ascribe motives to people that I don't even know.

 

 

Glad to hear you recommend other options but clearly many trainers of any kind seem to jump the gun with the recommendation of death.

 

Actually it is not clear that many do. It is clear that a few do (based on personal anecdotal information). And while that may seem nitpicky, I believe it is an important distinction.

 

I would say that in order to make the claim that many trainers jump the gun with the recommendation of death, objectively obtained statistics are in order. What is the actual percentage of total trainers, in a very large and varied sample, who do this? What are the percentages among those who train primarily through +R/-P, among those who consider their approach "balanced", and among those who train primarily through +P/-R? That would be tough information to get since we all make those designations for ourselves, but I would say that such statistics are the very least minimum requirement if one is going to assert that a significant population of trainers - of any type - recommend death when there are still viable training options to explore.

[mum24dog]

Despite the lack of scientific studies to back his assertions, I know that what that man said is true - at least some of the time. I once worked with a woman who came to me with a Cocker Spaniel (which she dearly loved, she asserted tearfully) whose barking while she was away at work was about to get her tossed out of her apartment building.

 

I offered her options. We could do crating/training to extinguish the behavior, she could move to a single occupancy rental unit, she could de-bark the dog, or she could rehome the dog with someone willing to put in the time on the behavior. I told her training would take time, and effort on her part. She decided that she was unwilling to impose her will on her beloved pet in any way, and had it killed. She lamented volubly (but not long, because I hung up on her) about how hard it was for her. I bet the dog thought it was harder on him, but he was dead, so i couldn't ask him.

 

Is that supposed to be an anecdote to take seriously? The dog had the misfortune to belong to a weirdo as unfortunately many do. How does that relate to this discussion?

 

Debarking? Are you serious? One more thing to add to my list of things that some people in the US think is OK to do to dogs that are illegal in parts of the world.

[juliepoudrier]

Apparently not uncommon, or at least not rare. I don't personally know any debarked dogs. What I don't understand about the procedure is that it doesn't make the dogs noiseless--it's just a different noise from a bark. But as far as I'm concerned if someone finds the barking annoying, then they would find the new noise equally annoying....

 

J.

 

Debarking? Are you serious? One more thing to add to my list of things that some people in the US think is OK to do to dogs that are illegal in parts of the world.

[Gideon's girl]

I have known tons of debarked dogs. It is something that show collie people used to do to many dogs in their kennel. I would rather listen to a dog bark all day long than hear a debarked dog for 15 minutes. Talk about making the hair stand up on the back of your neck!!!

[juliepoudrier]

I almost noted that it seems to be more common among show dogs, but as I had only anecdotal evidence, I edited that comment out. But I had read somewhere that it was a more common practice among the subset of show people/dogs. Apparently I wasn't imaging that.

 

J.

[terrecar]

I have known tons of debarked dogs. It is something that show collie people used to do to many dogs in their kennel. I would rather listen to a dog bark all day long than hear a debarked dog for 15 minutes. Talk about making the hair stand up on the back of your neck!!!

 

I agree. I had a Smooth Fox Terrier that had been debarked (she was about 2 years old when I got her). She was such a lovely dog, but the bark was creepy.

 

 

 

ETA: She was debarked before I got her

[geonni banner]

Apparently not uncommon, or at least not rare. I don't personally know any debarked dogs. What I don't understand about the procedure is that it doesn't make the dogs noiseless--it's just a different noise from a bark. But as far as I'm concerned if someone finds the barking annoying, then they would find the new noise equally annoying....

 

J.

Not at all uncommon among city dogs, especially city hobby breeders. Ever been to a Collie specialty show? Collies are blabbermouths. At a show you will hear dogs yelling "Bark! Bark! Bark!" and almost as many dogs going "hurr,hurr hurr."

 

I think debarking is no more traumatic than spay surgery, I have never known a dog to seen any less happy after the procedure than one that had been spayed. It also has two "advantages" for lazy owners. One, there's no work involved for them, and two, the dog can still bark all it wants, which seems to be regarded as a plus by many people.

 

Obviously, there are better ways to solve the barking problem than debarking. But if a client is unwilling to do the work involved, and if the dog's life is on the line, it beats a shot of Euthanol. Unless you "love your dog so much that you'd rather see it dead than trained or debarked."

 

Debarking was an option in that case because the owner was not bothered by the barking, the neighbors were. And you can't hear a de-barked dog through a wall. (Unless the wall is very thin.)

 

I can't stand "barky" dogs. I have owned many Collies and a Doberman Pinscer. Both breeds like the sound of their own voice. I have never de-barked any of mine and they were all quiet dogs because I was willing to do the work to bring that about.

 

My point is, many people think corrections, debarking (and crating, for Pete's sake!) are cruel. And to avoid doing anything that they feel would make them guilty of cruelty, they will choose to "give the dog a painless death" rather than employ them. That is one of the points made by the original article, and one of the points under discussion here.

 

There are a lot of bad, deluded and just plain nutty people out there that own dogs. Lots of them shouldn't be allowed to have them. But sometimes a trainer is presented with a case where the owner's impatience, ignorance or laziness makes it necessary to take the shortest path between point A and point B in order to keep the owner from dumping or killing the dog.

[geonni banner]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to to make. Second only in numbers to BCs in my circle are JRs, the vast majority from working backgrounds. All respond to the same training methods as any other dog.

 

I have one myself - just the one though.

It's a joke... OK?

 

Here's another, from the book, "Running with the Fox" By David Mac Donald. Terriers alone in the animal kingdom struggle to seek out conditions least conducive to their survival.

 

If you know terriers, this is funny.

[ChantalB]

I'm not a positive trainer. I'm not a correction based trainer. I work with dogs using a multitude of tools and whatever works. I do not use pain, fear or aggression. I do not scream or yell, bully or belittle. I manipulate the environment and reward good behaviour. Although, I do not believe in reward the good ignore the bad. Life is full of corrections, timeouts and rewards, I live in the real world. My relationship with people has tons of corrections, why shouldn't my dogs get the same feedback as I give people. I've witnessed countless positive only trainers correct their dogs.

 

What does correction mean really?

 

What am I? I believe in the relationship of dog/human. In the real world, there are a ton of corrections, cat swats if you get too close, dog bites if your a pain in the butt. Play with fire you're getting burnt.

 

If a correction works I will go that route. New pup has been annoyingly in my face, I've been shaping him out of it for 2 weeks but there's just so much reward being up against me. I could put him in crate or away when he's like that, but I want my dogs around 24/7, I don't want to isolate them. That does not aolve the problem imo. And a timeout is texhnically a correction btw. I said out, blew in his face, he backed away got a cookie. Second time, I said out and my lips opened barely any air came out. Third time, back out of my face on verbal and has been since. That is a correction, that worked fantastically and fast and no harm was done. He's a happy little worker.

 

I think training is all about relationship building. Nothing works like a solid foundationational relationship.

[Root Beer]

My point is, many people think corrections, debarking (and crating, for Pete's sake!) are cruel. And to avoid doing anything that they feel would make them guilty of cruelty, they will choose to "give the dog a painless death" rather than employ them. That is one of the points made by the original article, and one of the points under discussion here.

 

Those that the author of the article is accusing of being "killers" are not random clueless owners, but "positive trainers". To characterize "positive trainers" as people who would rather kill a dog than cause him or her any measure of discomfort is incorrect.

 

Most +R trainers use crates. All +R trainers (reputable ones) promote structure and teaching a dog how to exercise self-control. They go about teaching those things in a way that is different from the way that a trainer who employs use of correction in training would do so, but, in fact, dogs are being helped on a daily basis by these very people.

 

The very few supposedly +R trainers that are apparently running around out there promoting euthanasia over allowing a dog to experience any discomfort in life whatsoever are in no way representative of what authentic and effective +R training is all about, nor of how the overwhelming majority of good +R trainers would handle the specific situations referenced in the author's anecdotes.

 

To say so would be the same as me saying that all "balanced" trainers use extreme hyperbole to try to vilify entire populations of trainers whose philosophy differs from their own, simply because this particular author is doing so. Obviously, that would make no sense. Nor does the case that the blog author is trying to make through personal anecdote, hyperbole, and mischaracterization.

[terrecar]

Here's another, from the book, "Running with the Fox" By David Mac Donald. Terriers alone in the animal kingdom struggle to seek out conditions least conducive to their survival.

 

Those of us who know and love terriers like to refer to that as the kamikaze factor courage.

 

 

ETA: Although in the case of my breed ring champions, it could just as well have been attributed to that 'refined head'. Narrow skull=not enough brain space

[juliepoudrier]

ISTM that we are to the point of beating a very dead horse here. How many times do people need to say that not all (or even a more than a few) positive trainers would advocate euthanasia for a correctable problem? How many times does it need to be pointed out that so-called balanced trainers are probably just as likely as any single positive trainer to advocate euth for a particular problem dog? No one needs to say it 100 times to make it so.

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

ISTM that we are to the point of beating a very dead horse here. How many times do people need to say that not all (or even a more than a few) positive trainers would advocate euthanasia for a correctable problem? How many times does it need to be pointed out that so-called balanced trainers are probably just as likely as any single positive trainer to advocate euth for a particular problem dog? No one needs to say it 100 times to make it so.

 

J.

 

I am always looking for a reason to use this particular smilie:

 

[Root Beer]

I do have to say one thing in this author's favor. (Surprise, surprise!)

 

Putting this shock-value piece out there on the internet has gotten people talking. I googled "silent killer tyler muto" and this article has been discussed in depth on a good many forums. (Although we are apparently sadly behind the times, as this was a hot topic on most forums last July!! )

 

I've gone into a few of them to see what people had to say and there has been some really fantastic discussion and rebuttal. Indirectly, anyway, the author has provided the opportunity for a good many of the misconceptions that he puts forth in his post to be brought up in discussion and clarified.

 

I appreciate the fact that his work has prompted open debate and discussion. I actually had no idea that this particular charge was being made against primarily +R based trainers, and awareness of what incorrect notions are currently in fashion is always useful.

 

Smileys!! My favorite . . .

 

[Grizel]

Donald, I loved your post. Methods of all types are evolving, and that is a wonderful thing for dogs IF their owners have open minds and can avail themselves of what is now available. I have switched between the Contemporary Behaviorists and Traditionalists for different dogs. It was great to have different types of training available.

 

I think this evolution has an energy that excites people. There is also a lot of money to be made, for the reasons you specified and others. I have come across many unqualified trainers or people who appear have substituted training methodology for religion.

 

I get frustrated with those situations, but your post made me remember there are a lot of smart people with different viewpoints who making something that always was fundamentally easy even more interesting and fun.

 

Thanks!

[rushdoggie]

Its funny to read how much money there is to be had, because every single dog trainer I know regardless of method used is far from rich, and many could not survive on what they make alone and live off of a spouse's salary. I even live in an area where people are more likely to invest in professional help vs. getting rid of their dog.

 

Even my friend who does behavioral work with aggressive or problematic dogs barely makes a living.

[Grizel]

That is too bad, rushdoggie. I have found the best trainers don't always make out financially. I have seen that happen in other realms of life, too.

 

I admit the trainer I know who made out like a bandit was married to an economist attached to the local Republican party so she had the benefit of lots of business knowledge and political connections.She set up a training school doing pet training, rally and agility and couldn't begin to keep up with demand.

[mum24dog]

Its funny to read how much money there is to be had, because every single dog trainer I know regardless of method used is far from rich, and many could not survive on what they make alone and live off of a spouse's salary. I even live in an area where people are more likely to invest in professional help vs. getting rid of their dog.

 

Even my friend who does behavioral work with aggressive or problematic dogs barely makes a living.

 

My experience here in the UK as well, even people who have spent many years and thousands of pounds gaining real and respected qualifications and practical experience. It's not a career I would advise anyone to go into.

 

For every one making a decent living out of TV shows, books, DVDs, spurious study courses leading to a meaningless piece of paper, "I can let you in on the secret" scams etc there are many more doing a great job for little more than the hope of covering costs simply because they love it.