Soft Dogs - A Review Of An Article By lying frosty And john (Stick Man) dahl
The Puppy Wizard
An Iron Clad Case Of Dog Abuse - (Stick Man) dahl.
HOWEDY People,
Without ever having read this article in advance, I've written
the subject header and intend to go through the dahl article
to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our expert field dog
trainers are incompetent lying dog abusing Thugs.
> Oak Hill Kennel
> Soft Dogs
So called soft dogs means a dog that'll collapse to the ground
or shake and quiver for days after being shocked, choked,
pinched, and beaten. That's what our field dog trainers breed
DOWN for, to get a dog that won't bite them when they
viciously pinch and twist their ears between spikes or the
buckle of their collars and the brass of a shot shell.
> by John and Amy Dahl
> First published in The Retriever Journal, December/January
> 1997-98
>
> There is not universal agreement as to the meaning of the
> term "soft" in describing a retriever.
Because there's no rhyme or reason to ever hurting a field dog
to make them interested in working... hunting. That's the most
NATURAL thing in the world for a Retriever Dog to do.
> Many enthusiasts confuse lack of desire or recalcitrance in
> training with softness
You mean the dog's withdrawal to defend itself by cowering
and shaking and pleading not to be HURT someMOORE.
> while others label shyness, spookiness, and other
> deficiencies of attitude as softness.
What else would we expect our dog abusers to say when they're
jerking and choking and pinching a dog to motivate them to
want to work with them as their partners? Oh. That's the
problem. Our field dog training experts do not train their
dogs to be partners, they hurt and intimidate and force their
dogs to do as they're told, or get HURT.
> We apply the term softness more simply to the inability or
> unwillingness of a retriever to respond well to heavy force.
PAIN, INTIMIDATION, CHOKING, SHOCKING, and BEATING.
> When dealing with such a dog,
In my nearly forty years of specializing in temperament and
behavior problems in mostly giant breed dogs I've never found
the need to beat a dog with a stick. And it's been over twenty
five years since I've used a correction... I've learned alot
during my career.
> the use of pressure (pain, jh) must be restricted to the level
> at which a desirable response is achieved, without overwhelming
> the dog.
Well isn't that NICE of you! You don't approve of overly
HURTING your dogs to motivate them to want to work and do
everything you ask.
> Although there seems to be a tendency among some to drop a
> soft dog like the proverbial hot potato,
Because they can't train a dog without HURTING it. Why must
you experts HURT dogs to train them? There isn't anything you
do in field work that I don't need to do for protection work,
just a little different spin, that's all. Dog training is dog
training and a dog is a dog.
> we find the soft dog,
But not to our experts. Our experts have hard and soft and
lots of other euphemisms for temperament problems THEY CAUSE
in their absurd, vicious, warped training methods.
> on the average, no more difficult to train to top
> performance than the "hard"
> dog -- the dog which is not very susceptible to pain.
Notice our experts are moore concerned with pain and HOWE to
administer it than actually motivating the dog to want to
work. That's where I start off teaching my students, HOWE to
command their dog's attention through praise and motivate
their dogs to naturally want to do everything they're asked
because that's the most NATURAL thing for a PACK animal to
WANT do, follow the directions of the pack leaders in a
hunt... The very most basic fundamental rule of dog training
is UNKNOWN to our experts.
> Often the soft dog can be taught lessons through light
> pressure more easily than the hard dog through heavy pressure.
What? What lessons are taught through pain and fear? Pain and
fear inhibit learning and memory recall and inhibit the dog
from TRYING out of fear of being HURT someMOORE.
> Parenthetically, we would deceive ourselves,
You ain't deceiving nobody no moore. I'm blowing the whistle
on you BIG TIME.
> and fail to deal with the project of training a dog
> properly,
PROPERLY? HURTING DOGS IS NOT PROPER.
> if we did not admit that all correction has an element of
> pain, physical or emotional, in it.
Sorry, lyng frosty dahl. Only dog abusing Thugs need to
inflict pain, fear, and intimidation into a learning
situation.
> The key is to understand the
The nature of our dog abusing trainers. They're mentally
deficient, and incompetent when it comes to handling and
training dogs, or they wouldn't NEED to HURT them.
> use of pressure and to apply it to a degree and with a
> frequency that will get the job done without making the dog go
sour.
But it may make some dogs go sour... isn't that correct? NO.
That's not correct. There's no correct way to hurt and
intimidate a dog to train it.
> Soft dogs are not all soft in the same areas or to the same
degree.
Yes, I expect you'd know all about the different ways dogs
experess pain and fear.
> Some soft dogs lack drive,
Could that be because you're HURTING and INTIMIDATING them,
lying frosty dahl?
> range,
That could be because they know you can't HURT them at a
distance...or in field trials.
> birdiness,
Perhaps the pain has something to do with diminished desire to
even think about a bird???
> or initiative.
HOWE could your hickory stick fail to motivate your dogs???
> These failings are not necessarily related to softness
Right. They're related to incompetent uncaring vicious rotten
dog abusing Thugs hurting dogs because they don't understand
HOWE to train them without inflicting PAIN and INTIMIDATING
them.
> and are about equally common in average and hard dogs.
You mean a dog is a dog, dahl?
> Slowness, dislike of the water, and avoidance of difficult
> cover may all occur in the temperamentally soft dog, but again
> are not necessarily a result of the softness.
Moore doubletalk.
> Dogs that are extremely susceptible to discomfort in cold
> water, may, however, be described as having a form of
> softness that prevents their becoming good cold water dogs,
> even with extensive training.
I wouldn't know... I'm afraid of cold unless it's food.
> When we think of soft dogs we more often think of those we
> know or have trained who were soft in the sense that it took
> very little physical force to make them comply.
Oh, now that's a switch (pardon the pun).
> Often these dogs were extremely talented, had great drive
> and speed, were birdy and intelligent and had endearing
> personalities. Several made excellent field trial performers.
Rare is it that you have a dog you don't need to hurt a lot?
> Modern electric collars can make training less traumatic for
> soft dogs such as this golden bitch
Yes, shocking the dog is much nicer than beating and twisting
its ears and choking IT...
> One of these was FC/AFC Jaffer's Blackie. Blackie was a
> large dog with great drive, intelligence, and charisma. He
> was soft. A lesson could be taught to him quickly with
> little pressure,
You mean without hurting and intimidating him much?
> and he would retain it.
Yes. Research into learning tells us we cannot learn and
retain and recall information if we are in pain and under
duress.
> Shortly after Blackie came in for training, at 2 1/2 years
> of age, John was running the dog on some lining problems when
> Blackie stopped midway to the dummies
You and john were in front of the dog?
> and plastered his nose to the ground. He was glued to bitch
> scent from a female who had run the test previously.
Well, that would make a dog trainer angry, wouldn't it?
> John ran out, grabbed Blackie by the collar, and gave the
> dog two or three medium whacks on the rump with a training
> stick while holding him partially off the ground.
What is this "training stick?" I've never used a stick except
to throw for the dog to play with. You beat your dogs in
training with a stick.
> John then told Blackie to sit, ran back to the line and cast
> him back to the dummies.
And the dog came to you and your dh dog abuser?
> Blackie responded beautifully and we can't remember his ever
> putting his nose down while being run on a test again.
Because you were smart enough to pick IT off the ground and
BEAT IT.
> He was an example of a dog having all the right
> characteristics of a competitive retriever
You mean Blackie didn't try to defend himself as any
respectable dog would do because he's been beaten down.
> while soft enough to learn the lessons quickly and with
> little pressure.
Seems to me you'd do well to get the heel outta this business
before you end up in jail for animal abuse.
> FC Oak Hill Exponent (Pudge) was another example of a soft
> dog with great drive, speed, and cold water ability. Pudge
> was so soft that she could and would avoid a simple swat on
> the rump with a riding crop, even when on a check cord.
Why would you want to beat a dog with a horse whip while it's
tied to a tree?
> This form of softness, moving quickly to avoid physical
> correction,
Amazing! The dog has the audacity to avoid being beaten by
you?
> made her difficult in some ways,
Yeah. You had a hard time BEATING her cause she keeps ducking,
you pig.
> but she was so susceptible to what pressure we were able to
> apply
You mean you was able to train her even though you kept
missing hitting her with your horse whip?
> that her learning rate was almost unbelievable.
Oh. Maybe she became so confident she could outmanouver you
swinging your horse whip that she was able to relax enough to
figure out HOWE COME you were beating her???
> When she was three years old,
Did she make it to four, or did she throw herself into the
ocean to avoid being beaten anyMOORE?
> even though she was an excellent marker, she
> couldn't do tests having two bird throwers close together.
> Faced with this situtation, Pudge couldn't decide which one
> to go to and would pop (stop and look back) out of
> confusion.
That's the same problem you guys have with the glove in the
directed retrieve and the other example you mentioned the
other day about the dog going to the previous exercise when
the field is changed... you HURT the dog and that's why they
go out of control. Same problem for barking on line in susan
fraser's example where she and lyingdogDUMMY concluded they've
got to "steady" the dog moore by BEATING HIM for barking, the
reason he barks in the first place... kinda like homeopathy.
> This behavior was making it difficult to teach her the more
> challenging marking tests.
The dog was scared out of her wits, becase you and your dummy
husband BEAT HER.
> Pudge had had two force-on-back programs with a stick
You mean you needed to beat her for two hours...
> and a long 100-yd cord before this and was well forced to
> go.
You let her run full tilt for 100 yards and then jerk her
assoverbucket to teach her a lesson. That's a good way to
cripple or kill a dog.
> John's solution to the popping on marks was to put the
> electric collar on her -- with no preliminary conditioning
> we are ashamed to say, as we would not do this today -
Well let's talk about that, since you refuse to discuss this
aspect in our snake proofing discussions... From your own
words, the dog must be properly conditioned to the collar
before and after the training involving introducing the dog to
the shock, so the dog doesn't become DEPENDENT on wearing the
shock collar to be TRAINED... IOW, our so called snake
proofing lessons are INEFFECTIVE unless the dog has been
properly conditioned to the shock collar, a proceedure that
requires at least a week, preferable two weeks and a few days
of wearing the collar after the training has been effected to
OUTWIT the dog into responding even in the absence of DURESS,
i.e. wearing his shock collar. Got it? Your snake proofing
methods are faulty, and you and I know this, and NOBODY is
saying nothing, but KILLFILE JERRY.
> - and send Pudge on her marks. When she popped he would give
> the back cast with transmitter in hand, nick her lightly
> with the collar,
You mean SHOCK her. Let's discuss corrections. Every
incompetent trainer who uses force will agree that a light
correction is going to nag the dog and NOT be effective, and
may even provoke the dog. So, are you giving an ineffective
lite correction, or are you giving the dog an EFFECTIVE
correction.
As a koehler trainer, you know as well as I do that koehler
would solidly chastise you for giving lite corrections, as he
has stressed throughout his definitive treatise on PAIN and
INTIMIDATION methods of TRAINING.
> and holler "Back!" This worked so well that after two or
> three sessions of this kind Pudge stopped popping, drove
> back to her birds, and made her FC within the year.
So, evidentally the lite corrections were EFFECTIVE
corrections. That's why I've offered one thousand dollars for
any trainer to train a dog while wearing a dual tuned shock
collar themselves... lite corrections my @$$.
> On the other extreme, the really hard dogs we have trained
> require much more frequent and heavy application of pressure
> to get the job done. Such were Dual Ch/AFC Warpath Macho,
> who was extremely difficult to get to stop on a whistle, and
> FC Penney's Nifty Bouncer, who had convinced himself and
> almost us that he would never wait until he was sent to take
> off after a bird. Both of these dogs, although excellent
> performers, needed frequent and convincing use of physical
> force to keep them under wraps. They, too, were happy, hard
> workers, but being tough they were higher maintenance dogs
> in training.
Yeah. Are there any two letters in the alphabet (FC, JH, CH,
etc.) worth beating your dog over?
Any "trainer" who has to hurt their dog to make him work,
should get the heel outta this business and leave the work to
those who know HOWE to outwit a puppy dog without beating him.
> What degree of softness, and in combination with what other
> traits, might we want in an hypothetical "ideal" retriever?
Why don't you learn HOWE to make your dogs enjoy working with
you and teach them what you want them to do, instead of just
beating choking and shocking it into them?
> The late Mike Paterno, who trained and handled the famed
> NAFC/FC Dee's Dandy Dude, once said "The easiest dog to
> train is a soft fast dog. The hardest dog to train is a
> fast hard dog."
I just love it when two dog abusers talk about abusing dogs.
You'll notice their discussions have no meaning to anyone
other than a dog abuser.
> There is a good deal of truth in this statement.
Yeah. For the same reasons as you couldn't lay your horse whip
on Pudge.
> The fast soft dog may have plenty of speed, style,
> and momentum to make a top retriever while being responsive
> enough to be brought under control easily. Conversely, the
> hard fast dog -- already tough to get under control --
> covers so much ground so rapidly that a single cast or
> whistle refusal often puts him beyond recovery.
IOW he's outta HURTING range.
> In trials this gives an overall appearance of discipline
> failure, and in training makes teaching hazard concepts
> difficult as he can get out of the area of the hazard so
> quickly.
That doesn't have to be the case. If you didn't HURT the dog,
he'd listen.
> A soft dog, especially a smart soft dog, can be particularly
> well-suited to a beginning trainer.
For the reason above, LESS NEED TO HURT IT means the dog
learns faster and remembers easier...
> A novice training his or her first dog is usually willing to
> adapt the methods to the dog,
Good point. If you had effective methods, the dog would adapt
to the method. That's called TRAINING, isn't it, lying frosty
dahl.
> and to invest the time and tennis-shoe soles needed to teach
> each concept with minimal pressure.
You mean they're willing to actually work at training the dog
instead of just beating choking shocking and pinching and
twisting its ears and toes and testicles and shooting it with
slingshots?
> Such a team are Lane and Huck, who have
> recently begun training with us a couple of times a week.
> Huck (the dog) is very intelligent, soft, and responsive.
> Until his move to our area, Lane had no guidance on how to
> train him.
You mean he managed to train his dog without the help of
watching at the heel of an expert dog abuser like you?
> He noticed that the books contradict one another
Imagine that? And I've discredited all the books...
> and treated them with (appropriate) skepticism.
Get outta this busines... dog abuser.
> Using his intuition and his knowledge of what he wanted
> the dog to know -- and his voice -- Lane had taught Huck to
> mark multiple falls and to handle extremely well. Our input
> has been to explain field trials and the types of tests Huck
> needs to learn to compete. Right now it looks as though Huck
> will be competitive in the Derby.
Imagine that, he managed to train a dog WITHOUT HURTING IT???
SHAAAZZZAAAM!!!
> Lane's commands are unconventional, but who cares? Huck is a
> wonderful example of what a soft dog can achieve for a
> dedicated trainer who pays attention to the dog's response
> and employs a light touch.
YET YOU PREFER TO INFLICT PAIN and INTIMIDATION because you're
an incompetent dog abusing Thug.
> By the same token, a soft or sensitive dog will fare less
> well with a trainer who is predisposed to train all
> individuals exactly the same and with plenty of force. And
> conversely, a hard dog might require more force than many
> novices are willing to apply.
I just love to hear a dog abuser discuss abusing dogs...
> Bitches as a general rule tend to be somewhat softer than
> males, and this may explain the high level of performance
> they often achieve in the hunting field and in trials. Being
> more easily trained by less physical pressure, they learn
> quickly and retain lessons well.
Hey? That's what I've been telling you bums for years. Now you
notice. NOW you FORGET and resume HURTING the dog again.
> This is by no means universally applicable, of course.
Of course, that's HOWE come you got that title LYING in front
of your name, lying frosty dahl.
> When we think of such bitches as Nodak Bonnie Girl; Want To
> (Missy), one of the best bitches we have ever worked with;
> or Scarlett of Lakestone, also extremely talented, we are
> also reminded that great hardness is by no means exclusive
> to males.
Ahhh. Good. I like to remember all the dogs I've hurt in the
past because I didn't know any better. But the problem is,
your list of recent memory is already bigger than my entire
list of forty years professionally working with mostly giant
breeds with handler aggression problems from dogs having been
abused by lying dog abusing Thugs like you, lying frosty dahl.
> Breed differences in softness may perhaps be best addressed
> by considering the Chesapeake Bay Retriever.
Yes, now there's a dog you're AFRAID to HURT cause they'll
likely defend themselves and let you have it, and customers
frown on their so called self proclaimed expert trainers
HANGING their dogs because they've been HURTING them and the
dog was provoked to ultimately defend himself.
> While they are considered the toughest of the retriever
> breeds by many writers, the Chesapeake in fact has a
> distinct inclination to softness.
Perhaps that's because you're AFRAID TO HURT THEM???
> We have seen many individuals of this breed who were so soft
> that the slightest tap with a training stick would make them
> flinch and cower.
Yes. The next move is to go for your throat. Dogs don't LIKE
being beaten.
> Some of these dogs can be well trained if they have great
> talent and drive,
But not by a dog abuser.
> but care must be taken to avoid traumatizing them with high
> levels of physical force;
Because they're likely to rip your goddamned throat out for
ya. I'd love to get you in court in front of a criminal jury
for dog abuse.
> the Chesapeake rarely can learn through these methods and is
> easily ruined.
That's why our Labrador lovers have bred their dogs DOWN to be
willing to tolerate being jerked and choked and beaten and
shocked and having their ears and toes and testicles pinched
and twisted.
> Labs and Goldens can be found in all combinations of
> softness and hardness, as well as with variations in
> speed, drive and other traits, but the same
> principles of training apply.
You mean if we don't hurt and intimidate the dog they learn
faster.
> Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are often soft
You mean they don't understand PAIN and INTIMIDATION. When
they collapse, that's when they get dangerous, because you
risk pushing their SURVIVAL INSTINCT button, and that's when
the dog turns on you. Chessies are too big for a gentle lady
like yourself to HANG unless you're prepared in advance with a
hitch on something or a nice tree limb or door to HANG your
student over till his eyes roll back in his head and his
tongue turns thick and blue and falls out the side of its
mouth and when you put IT on the ground it should stagger to
it's feet and PUKE, or you didn't freakin HANG IT PROPERLY...
as per your koehler book.
> In training the soft dog it is of utmost importance to show
> the dog what is expected of her or him.
Oy! What a miserable s.o.b. you are. A soft dog you're gonna
train, a tough dog you're gonna beat and shock and choke and
twist and pinch???
> Often the trainer must find a creative solution to make a
> concept clear to that particular dog.
You mean like my plan to see you criminally prosecuted as a
dog abuser?
> Once the dog understands through these demonstrations what
> you require, very little force is needed to get results.
Once you're committed to a criminal facility for the mentally
insane, we'll get laws passed protecting JQPubic from abusers
like you and janet boss and lying "I LOVE KOEHLER" lynn and
cindymooreon... and the rest of your Thug pals who call
themselves EXPERT dog trainers because they can beat a dog to
make it fearful enough to "REALLY DIG OUT to beat your
stick"...
> For example, many dogs need to be convinced to return from
> an opposite shore by water after getting their bird.
Yeah. Imagine if you called IT and IT realized you couldn't
HURT IT at that range? Maybe watch five or six months and a
cash customers dog flip you the dew claw and head for the
hills where he won't ever get shocked or choked or beaten or
chucked or cuffed or twisted or pinched. Damn, you got lots of
ways to HURT a dog, don't you? I've never done most of what
you teach.
> One common method is to first teach the "here" (come)
> command and collar condition the dog, then on the retrieve
> "here" "here" and they will plunge in
> and come back. Alternatively, the "here" command can be
> taught and thoroughly reinforced in the yard using
> distractions and correction (typically a jerk on a long
> check cord), until the dog is so reliable he or she can be
> called back across the water.
Well, seems nobody recommends jerking a dog to make IT come.
BUT SHOCKING IT seems to be in vogue. What's the difference?
You're punishing the dog for coming no matter HOWE to lie
about what you're doing. We'll discuss the come command in
another expose of our dog abusing Thugs.
> We currently have some Chesapeake puppies who need to learn
> this lesson.
You shove your fingers down their throats to choke them out of
mouthing anything, in the litter box. That's HOWE COME you got
to beat and choke and shock them to take the retrieve article.
> They are too small to wear the electric collar
Your pal fraudreck of sit means sit shock collar talk net
radio suggest punching some extra holes in the collar. Pretty
smart, huh?
> and as they are soft-natured
Until you start choking and beating them.
> and beginning to teethe (a condition which exacerbates
> softness in many dogs),
Yes, because you shove your fingers down their throats to
choke them out of mouthing ANYTHING, THAT'S WHY YOU GOT TO
HURT THEM TO PICK SOMETHING UP.
> the second method is much too harsh, so we are applying the
> soft-dog method. We demonstrate the principle by making it
> impossible to do anything but come straight back. We use a
> large trolling reel, 40 lb test monofilament
AND???
> and a trolling rod handle
To jerk and choke the puppy with...
> (end of the line attached to the puppy, of course).
Yes, the chokee.
> Put it in free spool and thumb the spool going out to avoid
> a backlash and when the dog reaches the far shore and the
> bird simply reel him back slowly but with steady pressure.
> If this is done correctly the dog will never panic and will
> take kindly to being guided directly back to his
> ever-so-forbearing trainer. Usually very few repetitions are
> necessary for the lesson to be learned.
Amazing! You didn't NEED to HURT the dog. But you did need to
hurt him up till then, because that's the nature of a dog
abusing Thug.
> This method is not for use in "cheating" situations but
> simply for getting a soft, unschooled dog to return and not
> mill around on the far shore.
Right. The "cheaters" get shocked, beaten, or choked IN
ADVANCE, to keep them honest.
> Every aspect of training should be made crystal clear to
> the soft dog before employing such methods as electric
> collar reinforcement, slingshot, etc.
Oh goody, we were talking about your use of the slingshot. You
denied you use it as koehler teaches. I've never read this web
page before as my stomach usually empties uncontrollably out
the wrong end when I read about hurting dogs to train them by
expert dog trainers who don't do what they say they do when
they're talking about not doing what they'd never do. Like
you've said, you'd never hit a dog.
> Another creative solution was needed for FC Glenspey's
> Evergreen Cricket, whom John got in training at 11 months of
> age. A talented bitch, Cricket was also very soft and had
> been treated roughly by others before she came here.
Where she'll be jerked and choked and shocked and beaten
PUPERLY.
> She would try to escape any physical correction and was good at
it.
You mean she wouldn't hold still in terror while you BEAT HER
cause some other bum trainer LOUSED HER UP by lettin her go
when they was whuppin her?
> She had become so shy of big men during her puppyhood
> that any hulking stranger of six feet in height could put
> her to flight.
Despite you shock and pronged spiked pinch choke collar and
training stick?
> In one Qualifying stake judged by a particularly large and
> heavy man, Cricket practically bolted
> when he raised his judge's book over her head to call for
> the birds in the first series.
Yeah... Course she wouldn't be afraid of a lady with a
training stick.
> This fear of large men had to be solved.
Yeah. Give her somethin to REALLY worry about.
> Cricket loved treats, and we capitalized on this by distributing
> treats to all of the large men we knew at a field trial -- there
are
> usually several. John would approach these men -- to
> Cricket, monsters -- with her on lead and casually encourage
> her up to them. The men, having been briefed, would call her
> up in a gentle way and feed her treats. It worked. Cricket
> lost her fear of big men and became competitive in field
> trials.
IMAGINE? Musta took months...
> The modern electric collar has become an excellent tool for
> reinforcement of taught commands among soft dogs in
> particular.
INDEED! They PREFER gettin BURNED, rather than BEATEN.
> By comparison, the emotion and drama of shouting
> and running out to the dog to make a correction,
You mean to HURT the dog because your EXPERT TRAINING failed.
> as needed in conventional training,
EXCUSE ME, lying frosty dahl. ONLY DOG ABUSERS NEED TO ABUSE DOGS
TO TRAIN THEM.
> can be too threatening for many soft dogs.
IMAGINE THAT??? Soft dogs... hrmph.
> Furthermore, the superior timing of corrections
You mean to HURT the dog puperly...
> with the collar generally allows lessons to be learned with
> fewer corrections.
You mean you hurt dogs for failing to learn what you couldn't
teach them?
> The lower levels of shock are no problem for the soft dog but
> they act as a reminder that someone out there is maintaining
> control.
You mean the dog KNOWS you're gonna HURT him. See my post
"Swiss Cheese" method..
> Often corrections can be accomplished with no shock at all
> merely by holding aloft the transmitter, recognizable to
> the dog from a considerable distance.
AS STATED: "The dog KNOWS you're gonna HURT him."
> On the other hand, the really hard dogs sometimes require
> such an escalation of shock intensity that even they are
> often confused and scared by the sensation of hard shock.
Because you're a EXPERT trainer...
> It is of course absolutely necessary to know your dog and what
> he can take,
INDEED. I'd like to invite you to test my dogs to see what they
can take. They'd MAUL you, and I'd be laugin too hard to call
them off. They'd rip you to pieces and bury the bones.
> and learn from, before applying any physical
> pressure in a training situation.
That so? HOWE do you TEST he dog's TOLERANCE FOR PAIN, in
advance of BURNING him? You'd have to jerk and choke IT on
a pronged spiked pinch choke collar and BEAT IT with a sstick
WOULDN'T YOU?
> Soft dogs often prove to be excellent performers as well as
> rapid learners.
Yes, terrorism IS a good teacher. I specialize in TERRORISM.
> So we should perhaps not decry the soft dog as an inadequate
> wimp, but rather see softness as a trait to be taken advantage
> of
Yeah, it means you got a 50/50 CHANCE of actually trainin the dog.
> through which we can train a dog more quickly, efficiently and
> thoroughly.
By waving your shock trainsmiter in the air?
> The soft dog may be showing us, "Hey! you don't have to hurt me
> much, I get the idea, and I'd like to cooperate."
IMAGINE? Kinda like as if I was breakin your arm?
> Let's hope many of them are that way and that we, as trainers,
> can recognize it and make the most of it when they come to us
> with that wonderful nature.
Yeah, INDEED. I like to give a good ass kickin while I'm breakin
a arm...
> Oak Hill Kennel, Pinehurst, NC (910) 295-6710
> Copyright © 1998 Oak Hill Kennel
So, that's HOWE COME it takes six months to train a field dog
that should train up in a couple weeks... Of curse, the "trainer"
is GETTIN PAID for every extra day in training they're brutalizin
the dog to force IT to do the most NATURAL job for a Retriever dog
to do...
The Puppy Wizard. <{}TPW;~} >