Replies and Reasons
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
Not being narky, but perhaps I have posted my request for positive, gentle
training techniques in the wrong group.
I didn't get many replies (fewer still with the requested positive
techniques), and there seems to be an entrenched view in the group that
certain methods are the be-all and end-all of dog training.
They are no good to me. I wouldn't wish to be desensitized to the cruelty of
a lot of common training methods. You may not think they are cruel- I
understand that and I understand why.
I kind of understand why people put blinkers on and cling blindly to what
they're familiar with, but I dont understand why, as rational beings, we
often tend to avoid using reason to follow a train of thought to its logical
conclusion.
It doesnt hurt to have an enquiring mind. We're all capable of continual
learning, and thats a good thing! We dont have to have all the answers, and
we *can* change our mind! If we open it up..
I dont get the feeling that this is a group of dog lovers, so much as it is
a group of dog *owners*.
That's okay, I've just been barking up the wrong tree is all :)
Regards,
RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
dallygirl
i spent ages writing you a reply and then hit the back button on my mouse
by accident and lost the lot. sorry :(
basically you need to get them to meet on common ground, i know the
circumstances here so bear with me :) is there somewhere in the house your
current dog doesnt spend much time in?
i know it sound cuckoo but i have to go through this whole routine evry
time i have a foster dog or stray here. let them meet on even grounds,ie
dont have one on lead and the other off, dont give a treat to one and not
the other.
are they both male i dont remember reading what sex they were, if they are
both male and not castrated i would get that done pronto, you would be
amazed at the difference.
dont take your eyes off them even when you in months of having them
together. they may squabble just like kids but keep watch as its so easy
for it to get out of hand.
seperate beds,bowls leads every thing.
if they choose there own space away from one another thats fine let it
happen but watch out ~ my young dalmatian will upset the others by trying
to sit on them when they are in their rest space. shes a little monkey!
most importantly is to play it by ear,and relax :) think about your face
and body language.
if your uptight then both dogs will sence this and will both be on guard
ready.
hey and have fun,its great to make friends.
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
"dallygirl" <wi...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dee47677befb3ae8...@localhost.talkaboutpets.com...
> is there somewhere in the house your
> current dog doesnt spend much time in?
We only have a small house, kind of open plan- my current dog spends most of
her time in the living room or the garage (which opens into the house- from
her bed in the garage she can keep an eye on everything going on in the
house). She has been spending time in my room since her surgery, but
normally it would just be the garage and living room.
> i know it sound cuckoo but i have to go through this whole routine evry
> time i have a foster dog or stray here. let them meet on even grounds,ie
> dont have one on lead and the other off, dont give a treat to one and not
> the other.
I wondered whether meeting at a park might work? Perhaps my dog would meet
her as a potential play mate rather than an intruder? Its at least an hours
drive from the airport, so I thought if I get a friend to come with me and
drive us back, I could spend some time on the back seat with the new dog.
The friend could drop me off with the dog at the park, then pick up my dog
and bring her to the park for the meeting, that way I have help on hand too
(she's a good friend! :)
> are they both male i dont remember reading what sex they were, if they are
> both male and not castrated i would get that done pronto, you would be
> amazed at the difference.
They are both female- desexed. My dog is a big softie- she is quiet, doesnt
bark or like too rough play. The other dog is used to entertaining herself
outdoors, and from the info I got tonight seems to be starved of attention
(apparently tries to stop the lady's son from going back inside after he has
been playing with her- actually grabs him around his waist with her paws and
the mum has to get her off him). My son is 18 and actually looking forward
to having a dog that wants to play out in the yard, so maybe that wont be a
problem.
> dont take your eyes off them even when you in months of having them
> together. they may squabble just like kids but keep watch as its so easy
> for it to get out of hand.
> seperate beds,bowls leads every thing.
I plan to buy another dog house to put in the garage with the present one.
It will mean though that they are both in the garage together at night. If
that becomes a problem I can always allow my current dog to sleep in the
living room. (The cats will make room for her ;-)
> most importantly is to play it by ear,and relax :) think about your face
> and body language.
> if your uptight then both dogs will sence this and will both be on guard
> ready.
Yeah, I got some practice this morning at acting calm when I most certainly
was NOT. There was a beautiful big rottweiler at the park this morning- a
huge boy. Who, without the slightest provocation decided to try and savage
my poor girl. I've never witnessed anything so viscious up that close. The
only thing that stopped him (he didnt respond to his owner) was his owner
crash-tackling him to the ground and pinning him down with his body while I
calmed and reassured my dog and got her out of there. I didnt say anything
to the guy because I was just focused on settling my dog, but damn, even at
an off leash park a dog like that should be leashed :-(
> hey and have fun,its great to make friends.
I am excited to be getting her, and I know I'm going to have to put a lot of
time into her (into *both* of them) but I'm nervous nonetheless! I'm more
concerned with my dogs reaction to her than I am with any problems I might
have with her. I know it will work out in the end, because it just HAS to.
Hopefully I'll be able to past back in a months time that I was being
totally paranoid and neurotic over nothing :-)
Btw, we plan on slightly changing the new dogs name- from Lara to Zara. Is
that a no-no?
Thanks for your input Dallygirl,
RRR
shelly
>Not being narky, but perhaps I have posted my request for
>positive, gentle training techniques in the wrong group.
or maybe you are looking for something that does not exist?
or maybe you were unclear about what, exactly, you *are*
looking for?
>They are no good to me. I wouldn't wish to be desensitized to
>the cruelty of a lot of common training methods. You may not
>think they are cruel- I understand that and I understand why.
i leave it up to my dog to decide whether or not something is
cruel. for example, i frequently come across advice to use
noise distractions because they're supposedly more humane than
physical corrections. well, that depends on the dog. some
dogs are so sound sensitive that any noise that's sufficient
to distract them is also sufficient to scare the hell out of
them. *that* is cruel.
>I kind of understand why people put blinkers on and cling
>blindly to what they're familiar with, but I dont understand
>why, as rational beings, we often tend to avoid using reason
>to follow a train of thought to its logical conclusion.
i haven't a clue what you're referring to, but i don't have
any particular training methods i'm in love with. i prefer to
let my dog be the authority on what works best for her. some
of the methods i've seen described as "gentle and positive"
would actually be cruel for her. i trust her when she tells
me those things are "bad," instead of blindly adhering to a
method just because it's supposedly "gentle and positive."
>It doesnt hurt to have an enquiring mind.
as long as you don't, as they say, leave your mind so open
that your brain falls out.
>We're all capable of continual learning, and thats a good
>thing! We dont have to have all the answers, and we *can*
>change our mind! If we open it up..
yes, and to hell with critical analysis?
>I dont get the feeling that this is a group of dog lovers, so
>much as it is a group of dog *owners*.
you couldn't be more wrong. after several years here, i get
the impression that all the regulars love their dogs dearly.
>That's okay, I've just been barking up the wrong tree is all :)
perhaps, if you'd been clearer about what you were actually
looking for, instead of a vague description of what you aren't
looking for, your search would have been more successful.
>Regards,
>RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
and to kiss them on the lips, but what does that have to do
with dog training?
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/
dallygirl
consistent.
and a smelly bit of cheese can help :), zara here (or come) and reward
instantly with her treat but remember to call your other girl to or the
green eyed monster may step in :)
Janet B
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com>, clicked their heels and said:
>
>
>I plan to buy another dog house to put in the garage with the present one.
>It will mean though that they are both in the garage together at night. If
>that becomes a problem I can always allow my current dog to sleep in the
>living room. (The cats will make room for her ;-)
waitasecond..... you are wanting "postive" and "kind" answers to
problems, but your dogs are left in the garage with dog houses? Do
you not see the irony in your methods of choice and how you have your
dogs living, vs people who actually build an appropriare relationship
with their dogs, which allows the dogs to live like family members in
the entire house?
--
Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bestfriendsobedience/album
shelly
>waitasecond..... you are wanting "postive" and "kind"
>answers to problems, but your dogs are left in the garage
>with dog houses?
but she hugs her dog! meanwhile, i'm a dog abusing thug whose
dog sleeps on the bed with me.
Janet B
<scouv...@bluemarble.net>, clicked their heels and said:
>
>but she hugs her dog! meanwhile, i'm a dog abusing thug whose
>dog sleeps on the bed with me.
I knew that!
I'm a dog abusing thug who takes my dogs on vacations, let's them
sleep on the bed except overnight ( where they have their tempurpedic
dog beds on the floor instead), spends time taking them to flyball and
agility and field training so they can have fun, let them nap on the
couches (where they have their own throws) while we watch TV, obsess
over feeding them the best that I can for them, spend oodles of tine
with them, and never once do I seem to be "kind" enough to shove them
in the garage!
Melinda Shore
RhodesianRidgebacksRule <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>I dont get the feeling that this is a group of dog lovers, so much as it is
>a group of dog *owners*.
You're focusing on the second word. We tend to focus on the
first (*dog*). Putting human expectations on a dog isn't
love - sorry. Loving a dog's dogginess is something else
entirely from what you seem to be expecting.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Make it a Sony-free holiday.
shelly
>the best that I can for them, spend oodles of tine with them,
>and never once do I seem to be "kind" enough to shove them in
>the garage!
yes, well, apparently spending time with your dogs, and
working with them, is indicative of an abusive nature. WTF is
up with that?
Mary Healey
> Regards,
> RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
Sure it is, but most dogs don't like it. Why would you subject your dog to
an action it might find uncomfortable, yet insist that folks here promote
cruel training?
Please don't confuse your feelings and preferences for those of a dog's.
More to the point, please don't use improper use of a training device to
condemn the device or its use.
Basically, you're unwilling or unable to properly supervise dog-to-dog
interactions, which puts all the responsibility for safe, appropriate
behavior on the dogs. Who, being dogs, will behave in a manner appropriate
for dogs but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get along or behave
considerately toward one another.
My "cruelty-trained" dogs are crate-trained and obedience-trained. They
live in the house with me, sleep on my bed, and sometimes they've needed to
be kept separated when I'm not able to supervise. They're dogs. They have
likes and dislikes, and sometimes they aren't very nice to one another. We
manage.
I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but in some breeds same-sex
aggression is common in one sex or the other. In my breed, it tends to be
the girls who immediately form life-long grudges, and it's the females
who'll take every opportunity to maim, kill, or destroy a hated rival. In
another breed, it may be the males who tend toward intolerance of other
males. And, of course, some breeds tend towards dog intolerance generally.
It's something to consider when putting two dogs in the same household,
because there's no reasoning with a dog. I'm not familiar enough with the
Rhodesian Ridgeback to know whether they have dog-aggressive or same-sex-
aggressive tendencies. Do they?
shelly
>I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but in some breeds
>same-sex aggression is common in one sex or the other.
that occurred to me, but i did a quick Google for "same sex
aggression" and "rhodesian ridgeback[s]" and didn't find
anything. that doesn't mean anything, but i don't know
anything about the breed, so i left it at that. i would
*hope* that anyone planning to leave two bitches together,
unsupervised, has carefully considered the issue.
>In my breed, it tends to be the girls who immediately form
>life-long grudges, and it's the females who'll take every
>opportunity to maim, kill, or destroy a hated rival.
yep, it's generally the same in Boxers, too.
>It's something to consider when putting two dogs in the same
>household, because there's no reasoning with a dog.
and it's critical when putting two dogs--especially
bitches--together unsupervised.
ThePupp...@animail.net
"Mary Healey" <mhhe...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns971D5B04B3D9Ba...@130.133.1.4...
>
> "RhodesianRidgebacksRule" <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>> Regards, RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
>
> Sure it is, but most dogs don't like it.
Sez you, mary? Perhaps THAT'S on accHOWENT of your dogs
FEAR you, bein a PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINER and all, eh mary?
> Why would you subject your dog to an action it might find uncomfortable,
Evidently RRR's dog DON'T find physical contact INTIMIDATING
on accHOWENT of she don't jerk choke and shock her dog?
> yet insist that folks here promote cruel training?
Oh, perhaps THAT'S on accHOWENT of their POSTED CASE HISTORIES, mary?
> Please don't confuse your feelings and preferences for those of a dog's.
You mean on accHOWENT of dogs don't have FEELINS, mary?
> More to the point, please don't use improper use of
> a training device to condemn the device or its use.
You mean like your pronged spiked pinch choke and shock collars, mary?
> Basically, you're unwilling or unable to properly
> supervise dog-to-dog interactions,
RRR ain't got her second dog yet, mary. She's lookin
to learn HOWE to pupperly handle and train them so
they don't FEAR and ATTACK each other like HOWE your
dogs do, mary.
"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change,
Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Could Not Obtain
Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs,
NEARLY INSTANTLY,
As Taught In Your FREE Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's
FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training Method Manual,"
The Puppy Wizard. <{} ; ~ ) >
> which puts all the responsibility for safe, appropriate behavior on the dogs.
ALL aggression is FEAR, mary. ALL FEAR is CAUSED BY MISHANDLING, mary.
> Who, being dogs, will behave in a manner appropriate for dogs
Dogs ONLY attack and destroy stuff if they're AFRAID and ANXXXIHOWES,
mary.
ALL Critters Only Respond In PREDICTABLE INNATE
NORMAL NATURAL INSTINCTIVE REFLEXIVE Ways
To Situations And Circumstances Of Their Environment
Which We Create For Them.
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get along
Yeah, it DOES, mary.
> or behave considerately toward one another.
ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY MISHANDLING.
Damn The Descartean War of "Nature Vs Nurture."
We Teach By HOWER Words And Actions
And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.
In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH.
SAME SAME,
For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.
> My "cruelty-trained" dogs are crate-trained and obedience-trained.
That so, mary? You couldn't train your own dogs to walk
DHOWEN the street withHOWET jerking and chokin them. You
couldn't train your own fear aggressive dog Sam not to
chase cars in TEN YEARS of jerking and choking IT, mary.
REMEMBER?
> They live in the house with me, sleep on my bed, and sometimes
> they've needed to be kept separated when I'm not able to supervise.
On accHOWENT of they'll destroy your HOWES and MURDER each other.
> They're dogs.
A Dog Is A Dog
As A Kat Is A Kat
As A Birdie Is A Birdie
As A Child Is A Child
As A SP-HOWES Is a SP-HOWES
As A Mass Murderer Is A Mass Murderer
> They have likes and dislikes,
That's IRRELEVENT, mary. Dogs attack each other from
FEAR, not LIKES or DISLIKES, mary.
> and sometimes they aren't very nice to one another.
THAT'S on accHOWENT of YOU HURT and INTIMIDATE and
lock them in boxes and separate them, mary.
> We manage.
You lock your dogs in boxes choke shock intimidate bribe and murder
them.
> I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but in some breeds
A dog is a dog, mary. Only DOG ABUSERS BLAME THE BREED for
bein UNTRAINABLE, mary.
> same-sex aggression is common in one sex or the other.
HOWE COME most of your punk thug coward mental case pals
here abHOWETS got OPPOSITE SEX AGGRESSION, mary?
> In my breed, it tends to be the girls who immediately form
> life-long grudges, and it's the females who'll take every
> opportunity to maim, kill, or destroy a hated rival.
You mean in your HOWES, mary, not "your breed".
> In another breed, it may be the males who tend
> toward intolerance of other males.
You mean on accHOWENT of they're AFRAID, mary.
> And, of course, some breeds tend towards dog intolerance generally.
THA'S INSANE.
> It's something to consider when putting two dogs in the same household,
Only if you're a PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINER like yourself, mary.
> because there's no reasoning with a dog.
REASON got NUTHIN to do with FEAR, mary.
> I'm not familiar enough with the Rhodesian Ridgeback
They're kinda like a Beagle or Husky or Great Dane.
> to know whether they have dog-aggressive or same-sex- aggressive tendencies.
THAT'S INSANE, mary. Perhaps they're only CAR AGGRESSIVE like your own
dog Sam?
> Do they?
HOWEDY mary,
Mary Healey wrote:
> "buzzsaw" <t-...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In fact the only thing that really brings out the beast
> > in this dog that I have seen so far is squirells he goes
> > absolutely nuts and I have to restrain with all my might.
>
> Heh. I never did break Sam of that.
That and car chasing or dog aggression or any other
behavior you've never been able to train, eh mary?
But that never taught you to TRY SUMPTHIN DIFFERENT
because you ain't got the intellect to outwit the
cunning of the domestic puppy dog. Heh, heh, mary.
> Maybe because I found it amusing.
That so? You must be a very funny professional
dog trainer after TEN YEARS of NOT BEING ABLE
to STOP LAUGHING at your own dog bolting to
chase cars and squirrels.
> > ... I went wide around him onto the grass
That'll alert both dogs to become SUSPICIOUS.
> > maybe 10 ft from him and his dog as we passed,
I move dog aggressive dogs to 3' from their sides
and continue straight past each other and continue
ten ft beyond the cross point and REVERSE and DO
IT AGAIN till the AGGRESSION is EXXXTINGUISHED in
just a few minutes.
> > Max was good up until the point that we passed
RIGHT. That's the point where the handler must praise
and make the decision to continue forward or reverse
and do it again till extinguishment.
> > and he lunged at him and bark excessively.
If they blow up at the point where they're both even
with the other dog we continue moving forward. If they
break pryor to coming up on the other dog we reverse
and go ten feet and reverse again and do it over till
we can pass on a 10'X3' path till the aggression stops
then we sit the dogs back to back at the point where
they passed each other and do a couple exercises to
provoke them to make another aggressive move and repeat
the process till extinction.
Takes minutes to break fear aggression in ANY dog so
long as you AIN'T JERKIN and CHOKING and THREATENING.
> > I corrected with a "leave it" and pulled him away.
Yeah, that INCREASES ANXIETY and CAUSES AGGRESSION
just like HOWE giving a "leave it" command CAUSES
dogse to STEAL POISON soon as they think their handler
CAN'T HURT THEM in time to STOP the BAD BEHAVIOR.
As a PROFESSIONAL TRAINER, you're a FRAUD, mary.
> With a dog Max's size,
You mean a BIG dog you can't HURT and INTIDMIATE
like you could your own dog Sam who couldn't be
broken of chasing cars squirrels kats other dogs
or any other behavior problems you've NEVER been
able to consistently train ANY dog to do or not.
> a dog that can't walk past another dog and remain calm,
Like your dog Sam who couldn't walk past a squirrel
or a passing car, mary? Do you REALLY think your
ADVICE is worthwhile for ANY similar behavior?
> I'd have him sit/stay and keep him focused on me
Yeah, but THAT NEVER WORKS.
> ("watch me")
OR YOU'LL HURT HIM somemore.
> while the other dog walked by.
Or you'll jerk and choke him and throw
your body between them like you done to
Sam for ten years for chasin cars, mary.
> The important part of this is to
NOT FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE, mary.
> make sure the other dog does not
> interfere with Max in ANY way -
timmy doesn't even have CON-TROLL of his
own dog just like HOWE you didn't have
CON-TROLL of your own dog Sam for ten
years with the same problem.
>- no sniffing, no "he's friendly", nothing.
BWEEEEEEEEAHAHAHAHHAHHA!!!
You think IGNORING the other dog is gonna train
your dog not to be afraid, like HOWE you tried
for ten years with your own dog Sam, mary?:
HOWEDY mary you miserable lying dog abusing fraud,
Mary Healey wrote:
> dave...@rtccom.net wrote in news:1120751338.003117.206900
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > we have aprox. 6# pitbull puppies 4 sale. parents on
> > site. great markings.
>
> Y'know, the first question I have when looking for a puppy
> is not "what color should I get"?
The Amazing Puppy Wizard usually picks color first.
HOWE else are you gonna eliminate all the nice prospects?
> > ... no they are not registered but, all parents are on site.
Good. Home bred pups, raised with children, no DHOWET <{); ~ ) >
> Forget registration,
He sez he AIN'T GOT registration. The Amazing Puppy
Wizard don't care abHOWET registrations unless HE'S
fixin to BREED the dog for SHOWE puppies <{); ~ ) >
But HE don't SELL PUPPIES to dog abusers like you, mary.
> are the sire and dam tested for heritable genetic problems?
You mean like hemangiosarcoma?
You got 2 DEAD DOGS and a DEAD KAT from hemangiosarcoma.
You think it's CONtagiHOWES or do you THINK IT MIGHT be
a STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE DIS-EASE of the micro epethilieal
cells aka The Puppy Wizard's SYNDROME <{); ~ ) >
Here's a couple EXXXCERPTS from your own posted CASE HISTORY:
"My 13-year old cat is going strong, even with no teeth
and some kidney damage that requires sub-q fluids a couple
times a week. My 7-year old cat is dead, because of kidney
damage that didn't respond to hydration.
I've got a cat with a liver problem. That much was known
from his symptoms (weight loss) and blood work. The steroid
treatment (prednisolone) he received for the symptoms at
initial presentation would have messed up the treatment
for the underlying cause - if the underlying cause was liver
cancer. It wasn't, thank goodness, but he had 3 chemotherapy
treatments before we got that part figured out.
Sam and Noah both died from what seems like the same kind
of aggressive, super-nasty cancer (hemangiosarcoma).
Because Gareth's treatments were much more expensive than
I'd anticipated, among other reasons, when Sam was injured
in a scrap with Ranger I chose to treat him at home - without
veterinary care. Cost *was* a consideration. He lost part
of one ear, with the usual impressive spattering of gore.
Do you think I deliberately allowed Sam to suffer? Was what
I did (or didn't do) neglect? His ear healed cleanly, but
that wasn't apparent at the time.
> If so, where could I find verification of that?
He SEZ he AIN'T GOT no registrations. He's got EXXXCELLENT
PET Pit Bull Puppies that DON'T FIGHT and DON'T DROP DEAD
from cancer like your critters seem to have a BAD HABIT of
doin, mary.
> > the dad, hanabal is a very impresive dog.
No DHOWET.
> > one of the best watch dogs i,ve ever owned!
EXXXCELLENT. All the QUALITIES of a FAMILY PET.
> > he is really something else!
INDEEDY.
> Well, he ain't breed-standard
You mean on accHOWENT of he DON'T FIGHT like your dogs, mary?:
"when Sam was injured in a scrap with Ranger I chose to treat
him at home - without veterinary care. Cost *was* a consideration.
He lost part of one ear, with the usual impressive spattering of
gore."
> if he's a good watch dog,
You mean you don't think dogs NATURALLY protect their families?
> so you're absolutely right.
Probably so, mary.
> He is something other than a good pit. Not sure why
> you'd perpetuate an incorrect temperament?
You mean on accHOWENT of his dogs DON'T FIGHT like yours?
> > bulky! with block head.
> What's the brain in that block head like?
Ain't NUTHIN like THIS, mary:
"Sam ate the complete works of Charles Dickens, a heating pad,
a brand new pair of glasses, a baggie full of metal staples,
and a 3'x3' chunk of the kitchen linoleum. And the plugs off
many of the electrical appliances. And various personal bits
out of every pair of jeans and underwear I possessed."
> Ever do anything with these dogs
> except encourage them to reproduce?
You mean, like CHASE CARS, mary?:
"Sam started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop."
Maybe you got a case of the cobbler's shoeless kids,
eh PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINER mary?:
"I use him as a demonstration dog in obedience classes.
Sam started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop."
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
> > these pups are all fully wormed, these pups are
> > selling for only $100.00 each. this is are 9th.
Well you can't beat that with a stick, can you, mary.
At least as far as a GOOD FAMILY PET Pit Bull, eh?
> > litter and we have sold all! are dogs. we have
> > sold over 75# dogs!
>
> How many owners are you still in contact with?
Let's talk abHOWET your own dogs, mary?:
"I use him as a demonstration dog in obedience classes.
Sam started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop."
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
Sam is why I'm "allergic" to puppies, but also why I
adore obnoxious adolescent dawgs. I dragged him to
obedience class when he was 6 months old, he dragged
me to obedience class (and agility class, and clicker
training class, and seminars, and show-n-gos, and fun
matches) for the next 4 years.
The world is a safer place now for dirty underwear and
plastic baggies.
I can go back to leaving the laundry basket on the floor.
And the trash cans. And I can remove my watch and set it
down without finding bits of its little crystal carcass in
Sam's crate. I won't have to flush Sam out from under the
dinner table, or eat with hot dogbreath steaming up my leg.
ANZ Sam-I-Am -- half ACD, all dog.
MHH
"I use him as a demonstration dog in obedience classes.
Sam started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop."
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
Heck, I still have an ACD who adores all people (also
not "normal" breed behavior!), but he's very breed-
typical in his attempts to control and "police" the
behavior of other dogs.
"I use him as a demonstration dog in obedience classes.
Sam started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop."
Left to his own devices, he'd be picking fights and
bossing everydoggy. That's why he's not left to his
own devices.
That's why he's not left to his own devices.
I wouldn't take Ranger to a dog park.
I have let him off lead, but only to play fetch
(he's ball obsessed) and never with strange dogs
around.
He can be a gentleman, but I can't depend on it."
Ooooooh! SCARY, ain't it!
You mean on accHOWENT of YOU GOT THE SAME PROBLEM
the original poster was askin for ADVICE abHOWET.
You gonna tell us HOWE you managed to EXXXPERTLY
PROFESSIONALLY TRAIN your own fear aggressive dogs
to be FEAR AGGRESSIVE when you ain't standin there
ready and able to HURT and INTIMIDATE them someMOORE?
On accHOWENT of her EXXXPERTLY PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED
DOG WILL RUN HOWET ON HER and would NEVER return JUST
LIKE HOWE dra linda aka tallgrass's St. Bernard jumped
her six foot fence and ESCAPED <{); ~ ) >
On accHOWENT of YOU GOT THE SAME PROBLEM the original
poster was ASKING for ADVICE, REMEMBER mary <{); ~ ) >
Subject: Re: Car Chasin' Dog
HOWEDY mary,
"Mary H Healey" <mhhea...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:41E68BA0...@iastate.edu...
> ella wrote:
> > Any thoughts on how to convince an otherwise
> > well trained dog NOT to chase cars.
Yeah. That's EZ if you know HOWE.
> You've had some good advice
That so, mary? The only ADVICE she was given
was to REWARD the BAD BEHAVIOR with treats
and to choke and intimidate the dog someMOORE.
REMEMBER mary, you miserable dog abusing mental case?
> (incompatible behavior,
That won't EXXXTINGUISH the behavior, mary,
that's what you do when you CAN'T TRAIN the
dog NOT to DO the behavior, mary.
> "leave it",
You mean jerk and choke IT while SCREAMIN "LEAVE IT"
like HOWE your pal taragreen2 was fixin to teach us
pryor to getin CHOKED UP.
> prong collar, etc.),
You mean when regular jerking and choking
on your slip choke collar don't HURT and
INTIMDIATE the dog ENOUGH to make IT
respect your AUTHORITY, mary?
> and I've used most of them,
INDEEDY. THAT'S HOWE COME The Amazing Puppy
Wizard SEZ: "DECENT PEOPLE DO NOT POST HERE
abHOWETS."
REMEMBER mary, you dog abusing mental case?
> but the simplest "fix" I've used is to simply
> put myself between the dog and the traffic.
You mean a barrier. Ever heard of BARRIER
FRUSTRATION SYNDROME, mary? You could
make yourself the stimuli that TRIGGERS the
BAD BEHAVIOR if you're the BARRIER behind
which the dog dog barks. It only takes a few
repetitions to train ANY dog to bark as soon
as the BARRIER is presented, if we CONDITION
the dog to BARK EVERY TIME the barrier is in
place... so, WON missed opportunity will TRAIN
the dog to bark at ANY THING if you're standin
in front of IT to AVOID the BAD BEHAVIOR.
BWEEEEEEEEEEEAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!
> If you're walking with the flow of cars on your left,
The dog will bolt and pull her into the traffic.
> have the dog walk to your right, no more than
> a body length ahead or behind you.
You mean, CONfHOWEND the dog's heel command?
> Don't expect him to grow out of this behavior.
RIGHT. You can TRAIN the dog not to do
that in a couple minutes, IOW, NEARLY
INSTANTLY, maybe faster if you know HOWE.
But the dog AIN'T GONNA HOWEtgrHOWE the
VISUAL ORAL REFLEX, mary.
THAT has to be DECONDITIONED, mary.
LUCKY THING dogs are CREATURES OF HABIT
and therefore CAN BE TRAINED NEARLY INSTANTLY.
AIN'T IT, mary, you miserable stinkin university
educated dog abusing mental case?
> My Sam, bless his pointy ears,
You mean your Sam whom you jerk
and choke and lock in a box, mary.
> started chasing cars at 10 weeks and never did stop.
Well then mary, you're just the WON to ADVISE US
HOWE to TRAIN HOWER dogs NOT to DO THAT.
Just start by tellin us HOWE you handled and trained
your little doggy Sam since DAY WON and we'll know
what NOT to do to MAKE dogs FEAR AGGRESSIVE
of passing cars, eh mary?
> He'd chase 'em from inside my car,
On accHOWENT of you couldn't jerk and choke
IT EVERY TIME on accHOWENT of you was busy
DRIVING, therebye VARIABLY REINFORCING the
BAD BEHAVIOR EVERY TIME you FAILED TO HURT
and INTIMDATE HIM in a timely manner.
THAT'S HOWE COME AVERSIVES DO NOT TRAIN DOGS,
mary, you dog abusing mental case.
> along the road, wherever, whenever.
Any time you rely on PAIN FEAR FORCE BRIBERY
and INTIMIDATION and FAIL to HURT INTIMIDATE
or successfully BRIBE the dog to AVOID a behavior
of the cunning domestic puppy dog you ain't got the
INTELLECT to HOWEtwit, you've VARIABLY RE-
ENFORCED the BAD BEHAVIOR.
> He did learn to control himself,
That so? You mean so long as you could throw
yourself in front of and between your dog and
an oncommin ANY THING, mary.
> but almost every long walk would have him
> diving at the wheels of some poor unsuspecting
> vehicle.
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
ANY behavior that's CONSISTENT PREDICTABLE
and REPEATABLE is EZ to EXXXTINGUISH NEARLY
INSTANTLY if we DON'T DO what you done to your
poor miserable abused dog Sammy since DAY WON
you miserable dog abusing mental case.
> It was always most likely when he was a little tired.
That so?
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
> Of course, that's also when I was likely
> to be a little tired, so maybe it was more
> my reaction time
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
You mean, you didn't HURT and INTIMIDATE
your little dog Sammy in time to EXXXTINGUISH
the behavior from DAY WON, eh mary?
> than his self-control that frayed a bit.
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
You're a mental case, mary. If the dog
learned SELF CON-TROLL you wouldn't
have to THROW YOURSELF IN FRONT
of your dog when it makes an ATTACK.
> YMMV,
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
You mean she MIGHT GET LUCKY and
CURE the problem by doin what you done
to CAUSE the problem, mary? Is that SANE?
> no warranty, etc.
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
"He did learn to control himself,"
You can't post here abHOWETS nodoGgamened
MOORE you miserable dog abusing punk thug
coward and active long term incurable university
trained MENTAL CASE.
> Damn, I miss that dog.
BWEEEEEEEEEEEAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!
dallygirl
i see you have been set upon by the puppy twit.
you know you are not dog abusing thugs or cruel to your dogs, dont let the
twit get to you.
did you know im insane and incompetant? oh well :)
Rocky
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
> I wouldn't wish to be desensitized to the cruelty of
> a lot of common training methods. You may not think they
> are cruel- I understand that and I understand why.
If you're going to make such accusations, you should be
specific. It would make a nice change of pace.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Jodi
> If you're going to make such accusations, you should be
> specific. It would make a nice change of pace.
I'm really leaning towards troll. Responding to TPW as if it is a rational
human being, making vague accusations/statements, and starting new threads
for the same subjects?
C'mon now!
--Jodi
Sionnach
"shelly" wrote:
> and to kiss them on the lips,
And let them sleep in your bed and actually live in the house with you, too.
>but what does that have to do
> with dog training?
Absolutely nothing, of course.
Sionnach
"Mary Healey"
wrote:
I'm not familiar enough with the
> Rhodesian Ridgeback to know whether they have dog-aggressive or same-sex-
> aggressive tendencies. Do they?
Yep - and it's more common in females.
shelly
>i read through some of your posts and the same things cropped
>up.
i assume you're speaking to me?
>dont let the twit get to you.
he doesn't.
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
> > Regards,
> > RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
>
> Sure it is, but most dogs don't like it. Why would you subject your dog
to
> an action it might find uncomfortable,
My dog loves hugs!
> Basically, you're unwilling or unable to properly supervise dog-to-dog
> interactions,
No, I *want* to supervise them, I just dont want to separate or cage them!
> which puts all the responsibility for safe, appropriate
> behavior on the dogs. Who, being dogs, will behave in a manner
appropriate
> for dogs but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get along or
behave
> considerately toward one another.
Hence my asking for advice on how to introduce them so as to reduce the risk
of a problem and what to do if it occurs.
RRR
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
"Janet B" <ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote in message
news:38hoo1prii76kpomt...@4ax.com...
> waitasecond..... you are wanting "postive" and "kind" answers to
> problems, but your dogs are left in the garage with dog houses?
No, my dog isnt left in the garage Janet. She has a big doghouse with a bed
off the floor which I bought for outside when I first got her. The idea was
she'd have a comfortable shelter fot the times she was outside, but as it
happens, she doesnt like being outside at all- her pit stops have to be
accompanied and are completed in record time. When I got her she would NOT
come in the house- she would not cross the threshold. Like I said, my Garage
opens onto my living area- as does my kitchen. So, I put dog house, which
she loves sleeping in, in the garage facing the doorway so she can see
everything inside when she is in it. Janet, she is free to come and go from
the house and garage as she wishes, there is nothing to stop her. The dog
house is simply too large to be in my living room. That would be ridiculous.
It has been a year now since I got her and she *does* feel comfortable to
lie on the couch with me or or curl up on my bed while I'm reading, but I
have to put her blanket there for her. She wont lie down just any place, but
that doesnt worry me.
> Do
> you not see the irony in your methods of choice and how you have your
> dogs living, vs people who actually build an appropriare relationship
> with their dogs, which allows the dogs to live like family members in
> the entire house?
Yeah, thats exactly the wonderful relationship I DO have with my dog, and
why I'm concerned her little nose is going to be out of joint when I get the
new pooch. She has bonded very strongly to me- we do just about everything
together. But she really does love to run about and play with other dogs, so
having a companion, especially when I'm at work, will I hope, be good for
her.
RRR
Janet B
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com>, clicked their heels and said:
>When I got her she would NOT
>come in the house- she would not cross the threshold.
Now see, that would not more be an option than walking on a leash or
getting in the car to come home. She would have been walked into the
house on leash, period.
> Like I said, my Garage
>opens onto my living area- as does my kitchen.
I guess heat and ac aren't an issue? If I left the door to my home
from the garage open, I'd be losing either heat or ac, which would not
be a cost effective thing to do!
>So, I put dog house, which
>she loves sleeping in, in the garage facing the doorway so she can see
>everything inside when she is in it.
You should have just moved her into the house. An open crate would
have subbed for the doghouse yanno.
> The dog
>house is simply too large to be in my living room. That would be ridiculous.
That's why crates exist.
>It has been a year now since I got her and she *does* feel comfortable to
>lie on the couch with me or or curl up on my bed while I'm reading, but I
>have to put her blanket there for her. She wont lie down just any place, but
>that doesnt worry me.
So why do you continue to feed into her phobia by using the dog house?
I don't get it.
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
practices that are illegal here- cropping ears, declawing cats, docking
tails, and training methods that are also illegal- anything that inflicts
pain on a dog is illegal except unfortunately choke collars. Seems they are
still ok for now. But anything that zaps your dog is going to land you in
big trouble here as it is considered a torture device. (But you know we dont
zap or kill our prisoners either). Its just a different culture. Brutality
*brutalises* - some people even think that squirells are chew toys!
Desensitization...
RRR
"Rocky" <2d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Fri971D7483114C9au...@rocky-dog.com...
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
"Jodi" <brem...@earthslink.net> wrote in message
news:q02jf.2056$YT3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Rocky wrote:
> > If you're going to make such accusations, you should be
> > specific. It would make a nice change of pace.
>
> I'm really leaning towards troll.
That makes it easy to avoid the discomfort of having someone ask a question
you cant answer by labelling them a troll so you can feel righteous in
ignoring or flaming them, doesnt it Jodi.
>Responding to TPW as if it is a rational
> human being,
I try to treat everyone with respect until they actually offend me. There
are a lot of different persopnalities and communication styles in this wide
world of ours, sometimes we have to just accept that and not expect others
to see things the way we do or communicate their ideas the way we do. I'm
not goiung to refuse to listen to advice just because I dont like the way it
is given. That would make me a dim wit. If you focus on the *message* rather
than the *messenger* you learn a lot more. I didnt come here to join a
social club, so I sdont care to know about your petty squabbles and who is
on whose side and why. I came with a single purpose- to ask questions that
the posters here may be able to help with.
> making vague accusations/statements, and starting new threads
> for the same subjects?
Well I didnt get many replies to my first post, so I thought I would have
one last try then leave if still no one was interested in helping. Whereas
my first post asked for a particular sort of help for a particular sort of
problem, my last post was addressing the fact that help was scarce in here.
I am *allowed* to start a new post when its subject is not identical to the
first, am I not?
RRR
Melinda Shore
RhodesianRidgebacksRule <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>(But you know we dont
>zap or kill our prisoners either). Its just a different culture.
Matt's Canadian.
For whatever it's worth, I think capital punishment is a
grievous sin, I'm appalled that we can even think about
having a "discussion" about whether or not it's okay to
mistreat prisoners, and I think you're badly mishandling
your dog (and expect that you'll mishandle your dog-to-be).
Dogs are not people. Dogs are *not* people.
Suja
"RhodesianRidgebacksRule" <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote in
message:
> When I got her she would NOT
> come in the house- she would not cross the threshold.
Hey, I've got one of those! He was absolutely convinced that it was some
sort of mean trick, and he would pay dearly for it. Needless to say,
there is no doghouse around here, and certainly no dog living in a doghouse
in a garage. You've had your dog for a whole year. Isn't it about time you
stopped feeding her paranoia?
Suja
Rocky
> Janet, she is free to come and go from
> the house and garage as she wishes, there is nothing to
> stop her.
This is the type of stuff people who are really looking for
advice say up front, rather than having it drawn out.
Rocky
> Seems they are
> still ok for now. But anything that zaps your dog is going
> to land you in big trouble here as it is considered a
> torture device.
Are there corrections for wrong-thinking people? From what you
describe, there are a whole lot of people in your barbaric land
(whatever that is) who like to torture pets. So many, that you
have to ban collars.
FWIW, I think that you should work on banning regular flat
buckle collars. I've seen them misused more than any other.
Mary Healey
>
> My dog loves hugs!
How do you know that? Seriously.
My dog despises hugs, but will let me hug him IF he's allowed to rest his
head on my shoulder. That's a dominance behavior called "crossing the T".
For that matter, hugging among dogs (where one dog grasps another with its
forelegs) is also a form of canine rudeness. Most normal dogs learn to
tolerate hugs as yet another human foolishness, but they don't LOVE hugs.
shelly
>How do you know that? Seriously.
>
>My dog despises hugs, but will let me hug him IF he's allowed to rest his
>head on my shoulder. That's a dominance behavior called "crossing the T".
>For that matter, hugging among dogs (where one dog grasps another with its
>forelegs) is also a form of canine rudeness. Most normal dogs learn to
>tolerate hugs as yet another human foolishness, but they don't LOVE hugs.
agreed. some dogs loathe hugs, and others learn to tolerate them. a
few, though, seem to genuinely like them. harriet, for example, will
lie down next to me on the couch. she starts out with her head in my
lap, then will scooch up so her chin is on my chest. that's her "i want
a hug and a cuddle" position. she squeezes her eyes shut and gets the
most blissed-out look on her face when she's hugged. oh, and she grunts
and groans. sometimes, she tucks her nose under my chin, which is, i
think, like a dog sticking its head underneath another dog's. it's
submissive, but maybe a little bit obnoxiously so. i don't mind.
harriet is the only dog i've had that i think actually *enjoys* being
hugged, though.
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com
We can't all, and some just don't. That's all there is to it.
-- A.A. Milne
shelly
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>No, I *want* to supervise them, I just dont want to separate or cage them!
not even if it's in their best interests? seriously, unless you can
guarantee that they will be supervised 24/7, you will need to find a way
to separate them when they can't be watched. not doing so is
irresponsible. (and, dare i say, this is yet another example of you
insisting that dogs subscribe to human values. that's a really unfair
thing to do to a dog. i assure you that dogs do not view being crated
in the same way that you or i would.)
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com
Y is for Yorick whose head was knocked in.
-- Edward Gorey, The Gashlycrumb Tinies
shelly
>This is the type of stuff people who are really looking for
>advice say up front, rather than having it drawn out.
why am i having Leah flashbacks?
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com
H is for Hector done in by a thug.
shelly
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>(But you know we dont zap or kill our prisoners either). Its just
>a different culture. Brutality *brutalises* -
you're painting with a ridiculously large brush. not everyone in the US
believes that killing and torture are okay. some of us are absolutely
sickened and horrified by such actions.
>some people even think that squirells are chew toys!
>Desensitization...
i haven't a clue what you're talking about. i've never heard of people
chewing on squirrels. dogs, maybe. mine thinks squirrels are mighty
tasty. but, dogs aren't people and people aren't dogs, so i don't think
there's anything wrong with my dog thinking squirrels are tasty.
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com
My mother warned me to avoid things coloured red.
-- Claes Oldenburg
The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; - ) >
"Mary Healey" <mhhe...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns971D5B04B3D9Ba...@130.133.1.4...
>
> "RhodesianRidgebacksRule" <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>> Regards, RRR (its ok to hug your dog! :)
>
> Sure it is, but most dogs don't like it.
Sez you, mary? Perhaps THAT'S on accHOWENT of your dogs
FEAR you, bein a PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINER and all, eh mary?
> Why would you subject your dog to an action it might find uncomfortable,
Evidently RRR's dog DON'T find physical contact INTIMIDATING
on accHOWENT of she don't jerk choke and shock her dog?
> yet insist that folks here promote cruel training?
Oh, perhaps THAT'S on accHOWENT of their POSTED CASE HISTORIES, mary?
> Please don't confuse your feelings and preferences for those of a dog's.
You mean on accHOWENT of dogs don't have FEELINS, mary?
> More to the point, please don't use improper use of
> a training device to condemn the device or its use.
You mean like your pronged spiked pinch choke and shock collars, mary?
> Basically, you're unwilling or unable to properly
> supervise dog-to-dog interactions,
RRR ain't got her second dog yet, mary. She's lookin
to learn HOWE to pupperly handle and train them so
they don't FEAR and ATTACK each other like HOWE your
dogs do, mary.
"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change,
Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Could Not Obtain
Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs,
NEARLY INSTANTLY,
As Taught In Your FREE Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's
FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training Method Manual,"
The Puppy Wizard. <{} ; ~ ) >
> which puts all the responsibility for safe, appropriate behavior on the
> dogs.
ALL aggression is FEAR, mary. ALL FEAR is CAUSED BY MISHANDLING, mary.
> Who, being dogs, will behave in a manner appropriate for dogs
Dogs ONLY attack and destroy stuff if they're AFRAID and ANXXXIHOWES, mary.
ALL Critters Only Respond In PREDICTABLE INNATE
NORMAL NATURAL INSTINCTIVE REFLEXIVE Ways
To Situations And Circumstances Of Their Environment
Which We Create For Them.
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get along
Yeah, it DOES, mary.
> or behave considerately toward one another.
ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY MISHANDLING.
Damn The Descartean War of "Nature Vs Nurture."
We Teach By HOWER Words And Actions
And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.
In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH.
SAME SAME,
For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.
> My "cruelty-trained" dogs are crate-trained and obedience-trained.
That so, mary? You couldn't train your own dogs to walk
DHOWEN the street withHOWET jerking and chokin them. You
couldn't train your own fear aggressive dog Sam not to
chase cars in TEN YEARS of jerking and choking IT, mary.
REMEMBER?
> They live in the house with me, sleep on my bed, and sometimes
> they've needed to be kept separated when I'm not able to supervise.
On accHOWENT of they'll destroy your HOWES and MURDER each other.
> They're dogs.
A Dog Is A Dog
As A Kat Is A Kat
As A Birdie Is A Birdie
As A Child Is A Child
As A SP-HOWES Is a SP-HOWES
As A Mass Murderer Is A Mass Murderer
> They have likes and dislikes,
That's IRRELEVENT, mary. Dogs attack each other from
FEAR, not LIKES or DISLIKES, mary.
> and sometimes they aren't very nice to one another.
THAT'S on accHOWENT of YOU HURT and INTIMIDATE and
lock them in boxes and separate them, mary.
> We manage.
You lock your dogs in boxes choke shock intimidate bribe and murder them.
> I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but in some breeds
A dog is a dog, mary. Only DOG ABUSERS BLAME THE BREED for
bein UNTRAINABLE, mary.
> same-sex aggression is common in one sex or the other.
HOWE COME most of your punk thug coward mental case pals
here abHOWETS got OPPOSITE SEX AGGRESSION, mary?
> In my breed, it tends to be the girls who immediately form
> life-long grudges, and it's the females who'll take every
> opportunity to maim, kill, or destroy a hated rival.
You mean in your HOWES, mary, not "your breed".
> In another breed, it may be the males who tend
> toward intolerance of other males.
You mean on accHOWENT of they're AFRAID, mary.
> And, of course, some breeds tend towards dog intolerance generally.
THA'S INSANE.
> It's something to consider when putting two dogs in the same household,
Only if you're a PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINER like yourself, mary.
> because there's no reasoning with a dog.
REASON got NUTHIN to do with FEAR, mary.
> I'm not familiar enough with the Rhodesian Ridgeback
They're kinda like a Beagle or Husky or Great Dane.
> to know whether they have dog-aggressive or same-sex- aggressive
> tendencies.
THAT'S INSANE, mary. Perhaps they're only CAR AGGRESSIVE like your own dog
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
you forget to say when to turn in your street because you forget that *they*
dont know its your street. And having clearly explained my feelings on the
treatment and confinement of dog it NEVER occurred to me once, that you
would all make the illogical assumption that I was locking her in the garage
rather than accept that my actions would be in accordance with my
principles.
Hell, I even tried to paint a picture for you! The garage is virtually part
of my house- indeed practically an extension of my living area by virtue of
its position and my house layout. (whoever it was that had their doubts
about my honesty on this- we dont use heat or aircon- we have the BEST
weather in the world and I only have ceiling fans- yes, even in the
garage!!). That was the threshold which she initially was reluctant to
cross, but now she comes and goes freely.
How can people who say a crate is GOOD say a doghouse is BAD?? Its cool,
roomy, cosy, and has no friggin DOOR on it to trap her inside!!! You all
assume I'm a nut and therefore jump to illogical conclusions. But I'm the
one who came here saying I had a strong bond with my dog and how do I get
that bond between my her and my new dog, and I create hysteria- actual
hysteria! So now I'm in for a "blood-bath" ??!! Give me a break. I know some
here need to feel and sound important and knowledgeable, but good grief! I
think everyone can do with a lot less melodrama and resort less to scare
tactics if they indeed *helping* people is their intention for posting.
You ALL seem to have dogs with behavioural problems and yet profess to be
VERY experienced- then comes I, admitting that I am new to dog owning having
owned my first dog as an adult for just a year now, a dog that breathes
heavy when it thunders, doesnt like puppies, but is otherwise the sweetest
most well behaved, obedient dog I have EVER seen in person and you all think
I am doing EVERYTHING wrong, and am going to f*ck both my dogs up if they
dont tear each other apart in a BLOODBATH since I will not put them into
cages!!!!!!!
You dont have the authority to make absolute statements and take me down for
disagreeing with them because YOUR METHODS ARENT FOOLPROOF! You have all
described to me the ways in which you have failed your dogs, and then told
me to LISTEN UP and do LIKEWISE.
Posters here DISTORT what I say- "I dont want a meek submissive dog- I want
a confident obedient dog" *****I***** feel the words submit and submission
are negative and unhealthy, because I want a dog who WANTS to listen to me,
because she knows GOOD things come of it, and NEVER bad things. I want her
to trust me (and believe me, she already does- but you'd have me undo that),
not fear bad consequences. She is already a good obedient dog, I never said
I had issues with that- I only wanted to help her BOND with the new DOG.
I DO NOT suggest that dogs have human emotion (though I suggest there are
POSTERS here who do not have the full range) but *I* do and I let it be a
guide- you know, if you feel BAD about something then you probably SHOULDNT
have done it!! I'm sure none of you would go so far to suggest that dogs
feel NOTHING however. But some here seem to have trouble reading from their
behaviour and body language just what it is they ARE feeling. I dont accept
that dogs are rational beings who can weigh up trhe consequences of their
actions- who's anthropomorphising now huh??? Jack needs someone to help him
pull his head out of his arse.
To those who were more interested in helping than grandstanding I thankyou
for what assistance you offered, for the rest of you, get a grip, and get
over yourselves. Take a good hard look at your dog and its behaviours and
ask yourself where are you failing your dog, and what can you do
differently. Sticking to the same old same isnt working so its no use
passing on ineffective advice to others.
I DO NOT fear a bloodbath, there will never be a BETTER time than the
present to do this, it CAN be achieved without INTIMIDATION and I'll let you
know how I go.
Thanks for the experience,
RRR
.. and for those who seem to have distorted my initial question, here it is
again:
> I have a sweet natured but slightly insecure 6 year old rescue dog who I
> have owned for a year. She loves to play with other dogs, and I am about
to
> get her a playmate- same breed, sex, 3 year old .
>
> Of course the whole point is that they will bond, but how do I do that
> without distressing my 1st dog who has bonded strongly with me?
>
> I am only after positive gentle techniques :)
"Rocky" <2d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Fri971DD5144B603au...@rocky-dog.com...
Melinda Shore
RhodesianRidgebacksRule <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>How can people who say a crate is GOOD say a doghouse is BAD??
The issue with the doghouse isn't the doghouse, it's
isolating the dog from the mainstream of family life.
>You ALL seem to have dogs with behavioural problems and yet profess to be
>VERY experienced- then comes I, admitting that I am new to dog owning having
>owned my first dog as an adult for just a year now, a dog that breathes
>heavy when it thunders, doesnt like puppies, but is otherwise the sweetest
>most well behaved, obedient dog I have EVER seen in person and you all think
>I am doing EVERYTHING wrong, and am going to f*ck both my dogs up if they
>dont tear each other apart in a BLOODBATH since I will not put them into
>cages!!!!!!!
You haven't corrected your dog's problems. You've indulged
them and made the problems worse by having done so. We've
all made mistakes with our dogs, and most of us, I think,
have been smart enough to learn from those mistakes and move
forward. You can either take advantage of that and avoid
having your own unpleasant learning experiences, or you can
do it the hard way. It doesn't need to be a bloodbath for
you to feel like crap - any fight between your dogs is going
to lead you to feel like the ground is caving in, I
guarantee.
Do you really think it makes more sense to try to learn
something from someone who has no firsthand experience?
Janet B
<RhodesianRi...@noreply.com>, clicked their heels and said:
>
>How can people who say a crate is GOOD say a doghouse is BAD?? Its cool,
>roomy, cosy, and has no friggin DOOR on it to trap her inside!!!
Doors don't necessarily need to be close yanno. But, for the safety
and housetraining of adult dogs, that's a wise choice. Doors arent
evil - I assume your house and even your garage has one.
>You all
>assume I'm a nut and therefore jump to illogical conclusions. But I'm the
>one who came here saying I had a strong bond with my dog and how do I get
>that bond between my her and my new dog, and I create hysteria- actual
>hysteria!
No, you hear the voice of concern, reason, and experience.
> So now I'm in for a "blood-bath" ??!!
very possibly. Hope not. leaving 2 adult bitches together,
especially with some breeds, is high risk.
> Give me a break. I know some
>here need to feel and sound important and knowledgeable, but good grief!
It's experience, not a need to sound important. read into it what you
wish, but I deal with too many "touchy feely, my animal would never
hurt another animal" types and I don't ignore reality.
>I
>think everyone can do with a lot less melodrama and resort less to scare
>tactics if they indeed *helping* people is their intention for posting.
You don't want to ensure safety for your existing dog and cats? that
is my first priority.
>You ALL seem to have dogs with behavioural problems and yet profess to be
>VERY experienced-
My dogs don't have behavioral problems, but I deal with thousands that
do. Experience is a great educator for reality.
>then comes I, admitting that I am new to dog owning having
>owned my first dog as an adult for just a year now, a dog that breathes
>heavy when it thunders, doesnt like puppies, but is otherwise the sweetest
>most well behaved, obedient dog I have EVER seen in person and you all think
>I am doing EVERYTHING wrong, and am going to f*ck both my dogs up if they
>dont tear each other apart in a BLOODBATH since I will not put them into
>cages!!!!!!!
Caution is never a bad thing. Some dogs are easy, others are not.
RR's are not notoriously easy or obedient dogs. You have a fearful
dog and have fed her fears. That's not a good sign.
>You dont have the authority to make absolute statements and take me down for
>disagreeing with them because YOUR METHODS ARENT FOOLPROOF!
What methods are those? You don't have a clue. Keeping dogs safe is
primary concern for most, and since many here are multiple dog owners,
and heavuly involved with dogs in some way, there's a LOT of
experience that YOU are lacking.
>You have all
>described to me the ways in which you have failed your dogs, and then told
>me to LISTEN UP and do LIKEWISE.
How have we failed our dogs?
>Posters here DISTORT what I say- "I dont want a meek submissive dog- I want
>a confident obedient dog" *****I***** feel the words submit and submission
>are negative and unhealthy, because I want a dog who WANTS to listen to me,
>because she knows GOOD things come of it, and NEVER bad things.
Of course we teach dogs that good things come to dogs who obey. But
at some point, something is more tempting. Perhaps not to a timid dog
who clings, but to confident dogs, yes.
>I want her
>to trust me (and believe me, she already does- but you'd have me undo that),
>not fear bad consequences.
You don't think that's how people here train? Trust is very
important. Trust that the HUMAN makes the decisions, above all else.
>She is already a good obedient dog, I never said
>I had issues with that- I only wanted to help her BOND with the new DOG.
She's a fearful dog who's fears you continue to indulge. That's weird
and unhealthy.
>I DO NOT suggest that dogs have human emotion (though I suggest there are
>POSTERS here who do not have the full range) but *I* do and I let it be a
>guide- you know, if you feel BAD about something then you probably SHOULDNT
>have done it!!
I never feel bad about giving dogs clear information.
> I'm sure none of you would go so far to suggest that dogs
>feel NOTHING however. But some here seem to have trouble reading from their
>behaviour and body language just what it is they ARE feeling.
No, it's a difference between reading body language and expression and
anthropomorphizing.
>To those who were more interested in helping than grandstanding I thankyou
>for what assistance you offered, for the rest of you, get a grip, and get
>over yourselves. Take a good hard look at your dog and its behaviours and
>ask yourself where are you failing your dog, and what can you do
>differently. Sticking to the same old same isnt working so its no use
>passing on ineffective advice to others.
Exactly what isn't working for the peopl who post here?
>I DO NOT fear a bloodbath, there will never be a BETTER time than the
>present to do this, it CAN be achieved without INTIMIDATION and I'll let you
>know how I go.
Who said ANYTHING about intimidation? Appropriate separation,
supervision, training - nothing at all to do with intimidation. Where
do you get that crap?
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
"Melinda Shore" <sh...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dmlgek$frj$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <438e4159$0$18202$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> RhodesianRidgebacksRule <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
> >How can people who say a crate is GOOD say a doghouse is BAD??
>
> The issue with the doghouse isn't the doghouse, it's
> isolating the dog from the mainstream of family life.
RE-READ MY POST. My dog ISNT isolated from any part of my home or family
life and is NEVER tied up or caged up.
> >You ALL seem to have dogs with behavioural problems and yet profess to be
> >VERY experienced- then comes I, admitting that I am new to dog owning
having
> >owned my first dog as an adult for just a year now, a dog that breathes
> >heavy when it thunders, doesnt like puppies, but is otherwise the
sweetest
> >most well behaved, obedient dog I have EVER seen in person and you all
think
> >I am doing EVERYTHING wrong, and am going to f*ck both my dogs up if they
> >dont tear each other apart in a BLOODBATH since I will not put them into
> >cages!!!!!!!
>
> You haven't corrected your dog's problems. You've indulged
> them and made the problems worse by having done so.
RE-READ MY POST!! My dog doesnt HAVE problems and I havent made ANYTHING
worse. To say that I have INDULGED these imaginary problems and thereby made
them worse is a LIE. You are deliberately telling mistruths, and I'm
interested to know why you feel the need to do that.
> We've
> all made mistakes with our dogs, and most of us, I think,
> have been smart enough to learn from those mistakes and move
> forward.
But according to all the posts I've been reading that *you* all have been
posting, your successes are limited and more often than not there is a shift
from one problem ( the one you *fix*) to a new one!
>You can either take advantage of that and avoid
> having your own unpleasant learning experiences, or you can
> do it the hard way.
*Your* way IS the hard way. A lot of unneccessary leashing and caging and
punishing for dubious results. No thanks! I'd rather continue having my dog
be obedient because she *wants* to, not because she FEARS not to. My dog
does not bark, dig holes, foul in the house, destroy stuff, annoy my cats,
fight with other dogs, or any of the other things that others here complain
of.
She is a VERY GOOD DOG, and I want to do the right thing by her, and have
her GET ALONG with the new dog whi is to be her playmate. I will not crate
her, tie her up, isolate her or punish her as I have been advised to do by
peeps in here. Way to go to wreck a good relationship with a perfectly good
dog. Came back from another visit to the vet this morning (surgery was the
reason for delaying the new dogs arrival) I cant remember how many times he
said WHAT A GOOD DOG SHE IS. He was totally amazed that even though he had
to cause her considerable pain changing the dressing, she stayed perfectly
still and did no more than whimper softly. Thats my viscious RR whose going
to get into a bloody blood-bath....
> It doesn't need to be a bloodbath for
> you to feel like crap - any fight between your dogs is going
> to lead you to feel like the ground is caving in, I
> guarantee.
YES. Kind of explains why I came here looking for HELP TO GET THE TWO DOGS
TO BOND!!!!
> Do you really think it makes more sense to try to learn
> something from someone who has no firsthand experience?
Your problem is two-fold:
YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL
and
YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT YOU CAN LEARN FROM *EVERYONE*
You are a most ignorant person Melinda Shore, and your so blinded by your
own self importance that you'll never see to change.
Not poor you, POOR PETS!!
RRR
RhodesianRidgebacksRule
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:21:30 +1000, "RhodesianRidgebacksRule"
> <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com>, clicked their heels and said:
>
> >
> >How can people who say a crate is GOOD say a doghouse is BAD?? Its cool,
> >roomy, cosy, and has no friggin DOOR on it to trap her inside!!!
>
> Doors don't necessarily need to be close yanno. But, for the safety
> and housetraining of adult dogs, that's a wise choice. Doors arent
> evil - I assume your house and even your garage has one.
Look out Janet- your buddies are going to jump all over YOU now for being so
cruel as to shut a door!!!!!! ***I*** was accussed of such cruelty when they
*assumed* I was locking my dog in the garage. You cant all have it both
ways- I'm cruel for not crating, and I'm cruel because the frigging great
dog house is situated in the garage!
> >I
> >think everyone can do with a lot less melodrama and resort less to scare
> >tactics if they indeed *helping* people is their intention for posting.
>
> You don't want to ensure safety for your existing dog and cats? that
> is my first priority.
Nice twisting of my words to suit your purposes Janet. Cant you just be
rational and keep to the point. RE-READ my ORIGINAL POST, then RE-READ your
STUPID COMMENT.
As shocked as I was by it when I first came here, tell you what, I am REALLY
beginning to understand why PW talks to you all the way he does!
> Caution is never a bad thing. Some dogs are easy, others are not.
> RR's are not notoriously easy or obedient dogs. You have a fearful
> dog and have fed her fears. That's not a good sign.
Fuck YOU you stupid cow, you know NOTHING. She has improved no end in the
twelve months I've had her. She is a lovely, happy friendly dog who has two
faults only- VERY MILD fear of thunder (which now I have the manual I'll be
able to work on) and fear of puppies (which I never knew about because we
have only just met a puppy- and now I have the manual I can work on that
too!).
Janet darling, pull your head out sweetie :-)
There's a good girl.
RRR
Sionnach
"RhodesianRidgebacksRule" wrote:
> RE-READ MY POST!! My dog doesnt HAVE problems
That's rather in contradiction to your statements about her being fearful,
etc., due to past abuse, isn't it?
> But according to all the posts I've been reading that *you* all have >been
posting, your successes are limited and more often than not there >is a
shift from one problem ( the one you *fix*) to a new one!
Exactly where are "all the posts" you're referring to? And who are the
"you all" you're referring to?
> *Your* way IS the hard way. A lot of unneccessary leashing and caging >and
punishing for dubious results.
Who, exactly, are you accusing of the above? How about providing us with
some quotes from posts made in the last week (which is about how long you've
been here)?
Said quotes must be directly from the people you are accusing, and have
been written within the last week.
> I will not crate
> her, tie her up, isolate her or punish her as I have been advised to do by
> peeps in here.
Please quote us the posts where you have been advised to tie her up,
isolate her, and punish her.
I've read every post in both of the threads you've started, and I have not
seen anyone advise these things.
> Thats my viscious RR whose going
> to get into a bloody blood-bath....
How well your dog behaves with humans has little or no relation to whether
or not she may get along with the new dog you're bringing in.
Dog-human aggression and dog-dog aggression are two completely different
things.
Sionnach
"RhodesianRidgebacksRule" wrote:
> Fuck YOU you stupid cow, you know NOTHING.
I believe the jury's back in as whether or not this is a troll.
Melinda Shore
RhodesianRidgebacksRule <RhodesianRi...@noreply.com> wrote:
>RE-READ MY POST!! My dog doesnt HAVE problems and I havent made ANYTHING
>worse.
Leah? Is that you??
Rocky
> I'd rather continue having my dog
> be obedient because she *wants* to, not because she FEARS
> not to.
This is where I lose you. You haven't demonstrated that anyone
here has ever recommended such a tact.
Your dog will be obedient to you when/if you show leadership and
consistency.
lucy...@claque.net
> My dogs don't have behavioral problems,
That is, except for a sock fetish that did almost cost one of your dogs
his life.
<snip>
RRR said:
> >You dont have the authority to make absolute statements and take me down for
> >disagreeing with them because YOUR METHODS ARENT FOOLPROOF!
Janet B replied:
> What methods are those? You don't have a clue.
Good point. The truth is that you guys have no method; you have only
training tools. Try whatever works on each dog, in the hope that
something DOES work. Well, something usually does. But there are cases,
though, when nothing works, and then, when everything fails, well, the
best you can do for the dog is to kill it.
> Keeping dogs safe is
> primary concern for most, and since many here are multiple dog owners,
> and heavuly involved with dogs in some way, there's a LOT of
> experience that YOU are lacking.
It seems to me that this is why RRR addressed this group in the first
place, with the specification that s/he was interested only in
solutions not involving pain, discomfort or intimidation or anything
else negative for the dog. Too restrictive, perhaps?
> >You have all
> >described to me the ways in which you have failed your dogs, and then told
> >me to LISTEN UP and do LIKEWISE.
>
> How have we failed our dogs?
For instance, by failing to make them understand that socks are NOT
food.
> >Posters here DISTORT what I say- "I dont want a meek submissive dog- I want
> >a confident obedient dog" *****I***** feel the words submit and submission
> >are negative and unhealthy, because I want a dog who WANTS to listen to me,
> >because she knows GOOD things come of it, and NEVER bad things.
>
> Of course we teach dogs that good things come to dogs who obey. But
> at some point, something is more tempting.
You mean, something like a sock?
> Perhaps not to a timid dog
> who clings, but to confident dogs, yes.
Well, does this mean that, in order to make a confident dog to obey,
you HAVE to hurt it, at some point - or doesn't it?
> >I want her
> >to trust me (and believe me, she already does- but you'd have me undo that),
> >not fear bad consequences.
>
> You don't think that's how people here train?
Well, do tell, please, how people here train when the dog wants
something that the trainer doesn't want. Like when the dog wants to eat
the trainer's socks.
> Trust is very
> important. Trust that the HUMAN makes the decisions, above all else.
Ever had the chance to live under a dictatorship, Janet? You absolutely
can trust that the DICTATOR makes the decisions, always - yet I doubt
that THAT was the kind of trust that RRR was talking about.
<snip>
Lucy
shelly
>RE-READ MY POST!! My dog doesnt HAVE problems and I havent
>made ANYTHING worse. To say that I have INDULGED these
>imaginary problems and thereby made them worse is a LIE. You
>are deliberately telling mistruths, and I'm interested to
>know why you feel the need to do that.
ah, i *do* love the fresh smell of irony in the morning.
>But according to all the posts I've been reading that *you*
>all have been posting, your successes are limited and more
>often than not there is a shift from one problem ( the one
>you *fix*) to a new one!
how so? my current dog came with some pretty serious
behavior and temperament problems. they weren't caused by me.
some of those problems have been rectified, others are
managed. that's just the way it is with some dogs. no matter
how much work i put into her, there is no way on earth i'm
going to be able to totally cure some of her problems, because
they're hard-wired. that's not something i caused, and it's
certainly not my fault.
>*Your* way IS the hard way. A lot of unneccessary leashing
>and caging and punishing for dubious results. No thanks! I'd
>rather continue having my dog be obedient because she *wants*
>to, not because she FEARS not to. My dog does not bark, dig
>holes, foul in the house, destroy stuff, annoy my cats, fight
>with other dogs, or any of the other things that others here
>complain of.
you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
1. leashing and caging (no punishment) are management tools
that allow you to work with the dog while at the same time
keeping her safe from harm. you *do* want to keep your dog
safe, don't you?
2. my dog does not fear me. please, don't make me laugh!
she, too, works for me because she wants to. she *loves* it,
in fact. when we work together (play, actually), she has my
undivided attention. she also gets lots and lots of praise
and gets told the many ways in which she's the bestest dog
ever. she gets corrected, too, when she does something wrong,
but that's no big deal. it usually consists of "ah-ah" or
"try again." i don't hit, yell at, or abuse my dog in any
way, shape, or form.
3. oddly enough, my dog doesn't bark (i cannot stand barky
dogs). she doesn't foul the house (where did you get the idea
that anyone here had dogs that did that?). she doesn't
destroy stuff or harass my cats.
she does dig holes. she enjoys digging and i don't care what
my yard looks like, so i let her. i can't imagine why you
would think there's anything wrong with someone allowing their
to dog dig.
she does fight with other dogs, if she has to. she's dog
aggressive. she came to me that way--it's genetic--so again,
it's not my fault. i try to make sure she's not in a position
where fights can happen, because it's unfair to her and unfair
to the other dog. i make mistakes, though, so occasionally i
screw up and misjudge a situation.
>She is a VERY GOOD DOG, and I want to do the right thing by
>her, and have her GET ALONG with the new dog whi is to be her
>playmate.
your best chance for that to happen is to take care in
introducing the two dogs, and to make sure that they are
managed in such a way--at least initially--that they have no
opportunity to fight. that means separating them when they
cannot be directly supervised. whether you do that with a
crate, or by putting the dogs in separate rooms is irrelevant.
leaving them loose, however, is a recipe for disaster. why
you persist in discounting the advice of those who have
experience in this area is baffling. you *did* come here for
advice, didn't you?
>I will not crate her, tie her up, isolate her or punish her
>as I have been advised to do by peeps in here.
you have not been advised to isolate or punish her (what was
that you were saying about liars?). you've been advised to
make sure the two dogs are not left alone, loose together.
that's just common sense.
here's something to consider: a friend of mine had two
bitches who seemed to get along just fine. they were best
friends and playmates for *years*, and were allowed the run of
the house together while their owner was not home. one day,
she came home to find one dog with half it's face missing.
the dog had to be put to sleep, because its injuries were so
bad. she was so upset by it that she put the other dog down,
too. she couldn't face living with her after what she'd done.
i'd hate for you or anyone else to end up in a similar
situation, but if you are dead set on acting irresponsibly,
that's your prerogative.
>Way to go to wreck a good relationship with a perfectly good
>dog.
whyever on earth should separating the two bitches wreck your
relationship with them?
>Thats my viscious RR whose going to get into a bloody
>blood-bath....
first, no one said any such thing *would* happen. it could,
though, and you would do well to be prepared for the
possibility. second, you *do* realize that aggression toward
humans and aggression toward other dogs are two entirely
different things? my previous dog was seriously dog
aggressive, yet he wouldn't have dreamt of putting his mouth
on a human. he would've gladly killed the dog next door to
us, though.
>YES. Kind of explains why I came here looking for HELP TO GET
>THE TWO DOGS TO BOND!!!!
you cannot force two dogs to bond. either they like each
other or they do not. what you should be concerned about is
establishing a bond with the new dog yourself, and about
making sure the two dogs do not harm each other.
>Your problem is two-fold:
>
>YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL
Melinda may think she knows it all (i haven't seen any
evidence of that, though), but that's not the issue here.
what she *does* know about--and what she's trying to share
with you--is the possibility for bitch-bitch fighting.
>YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT YOU CAN LEARN FROM *EVERYONE*
of course, but would you want to? i certainly wouldn't.
call me silly, but i prefer to be at least a *little* bit
discriminating about who i learn from.
>You are a most ignorant person Melinda Shore, and your so
>blinded by your own self importance that you'll never see to
>change.
i'm sure there are lots of things Melinda is ignorant of. so
goes life. in this matter, though, it is you--by your own
admission--who is the ignorant party.
--
shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/
shelly
>Look out Janet- your buddies are going to jump all over YOU
>now for being so cruel as to shut a door!!!!!!
um, no.
>***I*** was accussed of such cruelty when they *assumed* I
>was locking my dog in the garage.
there's a huge difference between locking a dog in a garage
and crating it in the house.
>You cant all have it both ways- I'm cruel for not crating,
>and I'm cruel because the frigging great dog house is
>situated in the garage!
no. you are cruel for insisting on placing two dogs in a
position where one or both could be seriously harmed or even
killed. HTH!
>(which now I have the manual I'll be able to work on)
aaah. well, that explains everything. i'm so sorry i wasted
my time trying to reason with you.
-
shelly
> I believe the jury's back in as whether or not this is a
>troll.
either a troll, or a Jerry acolyte. she's got the manual,
dontchaknow, so now all her dog problems will be magically
solved by the little elves. must be nice, that. us mere
mortals actually have to work at having happy, well behaved
dogs.
--
Janet B
heels and said:
>That is, except for a sock fetish that did almost cost one of your dogs
>his life.
Not quite, but thanks for playing. You really have no idea what
you're talking about, so I'll leave it at that.
>Good point. The truth is that you guys have no method; you have only
>training tools.
"you guys"? You're lumping everyone in together? interesting - very
JH-like of you. I'm a motivational trainer - does that help you?
>> How have we failed our dogs?
>
>For instance, by failing to make them understand that socks are NOT
>food.
Ahhh, Lucy, socks are not treated as food or toys - but you'll never
quite understand.
>You mean, something like a sock?
Nope. He doesn't steal socks and ignores socks in my presence.
>Well, does this mean that, in order to make a confident dog to obey,
>you HAVE to hurt it, at some point - or doesn't it?
No.
>Well, do tell, please, how people here train when the dog wants
>something that the trainer doesn't want. Like when the dog wants to eat
>the trainer's socks.
Fixated a bit Lucy? He doesn't touch socks in my presence and not
because of any correction of any sort. A breed and familial
complusion when stressed is another ball of wax. Perhaps you should
do some research.
lucy...@claque.net
Janet B wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2005 23:35:38 -0800, lucy...@claque.net, clicked their
> heels and said:
>
> >That is, except for a sock fetish that did almost cost one of your dogs
> >his life.
>
> Not quite,
"Not quite" - what? "Not quite" a sock fetish, or "not quite" almost
killed your dog?
> but thanks for playing.
You're always welcome, Janet. <g>
> You really have no idea what
> you're talking about, so I'll leave it at that.
We were talking about the behavioral problems of your perfectly trained
dogs, Janet. Or perhaps you don't consider sock eating as a behavioral
problem?
> >Good point. The truth is that you guys have no method; you have only
> >training tools.
>
> "you guys"? You're lumping everyone in together?
No, not everyone - only those of you who do respond in a similar way.
> interesting - very
> JH-like of you.
See? You're lumping together all of us who happen to disagree with "you
guys". It looks like this lumping thing is a very human trait.
> I'm a motivational trainer - does that help you?
No, not really - but your honest reply about the choke collar some time
ago did.
> >> How have we failed our dogs?
> >
> >For instance, by failing to make them understand that socks are NOT
> >food.
>
> Ahhh, Lucy, socks are not treated as food or toys - but you'll never
> quite understand.
Oh, do help me! How exactly ARE socks treated by a motivational
trainer? How do you convey the dog that thinks that socks are tasty the
idea that socks are not for eating?
> >You mean, something like a sock?
>
> Nope. He doesn't steal socks and ignores socks in my presence.
But he doesn't seem to ignore them at all in your absence. So how do
you solve the problem when you're not there to prevent the dog to feast
on socks? Do you cage the dog or the socks?
> >Well, does this mean that, in order to make a confident dog to obey,
> >you HAVE to hurt it, at some point - or doesn't it?
>
> No.
That's nice to hear. So what do you do when the confident dog chooses
to disobey your orders?
> >Well, do tell, please, how people here train when the dog wants
> >something that the trainer doesn't want. Like when the dog wants to eat
> >the trainer's socks.
>
> Fixated a bit Lucy?
Well, I do have a soft spot for your dog with a sock fetish.
> He doesn't touch socks in my presence and not
> because of any correction of any sort.
Smart dog! All that he has to do is wait until YOU ARE NOT THERE. Then
it's party time, right? Open season on socks. Janet, how do you prevent
the kids from leaving unsupervised socks in Franklin's presence?
> A breed and familial
> complusion when stressed is another ball of wax.
Could you elaborate, please? Is sock eating "a breed and familial
compulsion"? Sounds awesome!
> Perhaps you should
> do some research.
Oh, I love to learn these things from you! Straight from the horse's
mouth, as they say - nothing like learning from someone else's direct
experience.
Lucy
Janet B
heels and said:
>
>"Not quite" - what? "Not quite" a sock fetish, or "not quite" almost
>killed your dog?
Both.
>We were talking about the behavioral problems of your perfectly trained
>dogs, Janet. Or perhaps you don't consider sock eating as a behavioral
>problem?
It's swallowing dear, get it right. And never have I said my dogs are
perfectly trained. There's always something to learn.
>> I'm a motivational trainer - does that help you?
>
>No, not really - but your honest reply about the choke collar some time
>ago did.
Oh well.
>Oh, do help me! How exactly ARE socks treated by a motivational
>trainer? How do you convey the dog that thinks that socks are tasty the
>idea that socks are not for eating?
Taste seems to have little to do with it. Socks are worn on my feet
and put in hampers when done with them. How do you treat socks?
>But he doesn't seem to ignore them at all in your absence.
Now see, there you would be wrong. I still don't leve them around.
Why tempt fate with something that can be deadly. I wouldn't leave
puddles of antifreeze on the floor either.
>So how do
>you solve the problem when you're not there to prevent the dog to feast
>on socks? Do you cage the dog or the socks?
The socks of course - they make special little cages called laundry
hampers.
>That's nice to hear. So what do you do when the confident dog chooses
>to disobey your orders?
Why do you think hurt would come into play?
>Well, I do have a soft spot for your dog with a sock fetish.
You're even stranger than I thought.
>Smart dog! All that he has to do is wait until YOU ARE NOT THERE. Then
>it's party time, right? Open season on socks. Janet, how do you prevent
>the kids from leaving unsupervised socks in Franklin's presence?
No open season on socks. No kids either. Trained the husband well
though.
Franklin's grandfather had the same habit until he died (not from a
sock) at an advanced age, his mother does it, several littermates do
it and from reading the flat-coat list for years, many of the rest of
the breed as well.
>Oh, I love to learn these things from you! Straight from the horse's
>mouth, as they say - nothing like learning from someone else's direct
>experience.
I'm so happy for you Lucy. Perhaps you have insight on this issue?
sighthounds & siberians
genetic in a dog, which IMO is asking a great deal.
It's ironic that Lucy (whose tone from the get-go is much more
sarcastic and confrontational than would seem warranted) should
reappear just now, isn't it?
Mustang Sally
Janet B
oh I know, and I fed the troll. Even they need treats once in awhile,
no? OK - maybe not! The holiday spirit must have gotten the better
of me.
Yes, I think the RRR connection and this new Denis person and Lucy
must be having a stupidity party somewhere.
lucy...@claque.net
Janet B wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 08:31:03 -0800, lucy...@claque.net, clicked their
> heels and said:
>
> >
> >"Not quite" - what? "Not quite" a sock fetish, or "not quite" almost
> >killed your dog?
>
> Both.
In your post to RRR you said:
<<My dogs don't have behavioral problems>>
So you don't think that swallowing socks IS a behavioral problem? And
you don't think it is life-threatening for the dog? Do you consider it
as a normal, harmless dog behavior, then?
> >We were talking about the behavioral problems of your perfectly trained
> >dogs, Janet. Or perhaps you don't consider sock eating as a behavioral
> >problem?
>
> It's swallowing dear, get it right.
Yeah. Great difference.
> And never have I said my dogs are
> perfectly trained.
But you DID say that your dogs don't have behavioral problems. So, once
again, is sock swallowing a NORMAL dog behavior?
> There's always something to learn.
Always.
> >> I'm a motivational trainer - does that help you?
> >
> >No, not really - but your honest reply about the choke collar some time
> >ago did.
>
> Oh well.
>
> >Oh, do help me! How exactly ARE socks treated by a motivational
> >trainer? How do you convey the dog that thinks that socks are tasty the
> >idea that socks are not for eating?
>
> Taste seems to have little to do with it. Socks are worn on my feet
> and put in hampers when done with them.
So no training whatsoever of the DOG in what socks are concerned?
> How do you treat socks?
I serve them to my dogs together with their food. They don't feel
tempted to swallow them, but it seems to amuse the cats.
> >But he doesn't seem to ignore them at all in your absence.
>
> Now see, there you would be wrong.
Would I?
<<Franklin doesn't even blink when I toss a
load of clean or dirty laundry on top of him, but given the "right"
circumstance, he's swallow a sock whole when I wasn't around, in a
heartbeat>>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.dogs.health/msg/61ea88d63faa62d0
Janet dear, your own words seem to prove me 100% right.
> I still don't leve them around.
Wise choice! Considering that you obviously cannot TRAIN him to ALWAYS
ignore the socks.
> Why tempt fate with something that can be deadly.
So you admit that the sock-eating, er... sock-swallowing habit CAN be
deadly. I love the way you contradict yourself in the same post!
> I wouldn't leave
> puddles of antifreeze on the floor either.
I wasn't aware that puddles of antifreeze on the floor are occurring in
your household as frequently as some accidentally misplaced sock. Hey,
you must be quite busy with chasing after socks and wiping the
antifreeze puddles.
> >So how do
> >you solve the problem when you're not there to prevent the dog to feast
> >on socks? Do you cage the dog or the socks?
>
> The socks of course - they make special little cages called laundry
> hampers.
So much for training the dog, then.
> >That's nice to hear. So what do you do when the confident dog chooses
> >to disobey your orders?
>
> Why do you think hurt would come into play?
I guess that the following exchange is what put this strange idea into
my mind:
RRR said:
<<I want a dog who WANTS to listen to me, because she knows GOOD things
come of it, and NEVER bad things.>>
To which you replied:
<<Of course we teach dogs that good things come to dogs who obey. But
at some point, something is more tempting. Perhaps not to a timid dog
who clings, but to confident dogs, yes.>>
This does suggest that, when a confident dog sees something more
tempting than the good things you have to offer, good things alone
wouldn't work; then, if GOOD things you can offer wouldn't work, WHAT
exactly would? Hurting the dog? Ignoring him? Threatening him? What's
the alternative to the "good things only", Janet? Or, in Jack's words,
what are the "unwanted consequences" the dog should expect in the
eventuality he chooses to disobey your orders?
> >Well, I do have a soft spot for your dog with a sock fetish.
>
> You're even stranger than I thought.
Yes, I'm stranger than you can imagine in your wildest dreams.
> >Smart dog! All that he has to do is wait until YOU ARE NOT THERE. Then
> >it's party time, right? Open season on socks. Janet, how do you prevent
> >the kids from leaving unsupervised socks in Franklin's presence?
>
> No open season on socks. No kids either. Trained the husband well
> though.
GREAT! Remove socks and kids from the dog's environment and TRAIN the
HUSBAND! Janet, I LOVE your training method! Do you still consider
yourself qualified to tell RRR how to train her DOGS? In some houses,
kids and husbands difficult to train are a given fact, you know; in
such cases, you have no choice but train the DOGS.
> Franklin's grandfather had the same habit until he died (not from a
> sock) at an advanced age, his mother does it, several littermates do
> it and from reading the flat-coat list for years, many of the rest of
> the breed as well.
I see, it's the dog's fault, then.
> >Oh, I love to learn these things from you! Straight from the horse's
> >mouth, as they say - nothing like learning from someone else's direct
> >experience.
>
> I'm so happy for you Lucy.
Thank you, Janet.
> Perhaps you have insight on this issue?
Oh, I'd have tried distraction and praise, but hey, what do *I* know?
Lucy
lucy...@claque.net
> On 1 Dec 2005 10:55:42 -0800, "sighthounds & siberians"
> <grey...@ncweb.com>, clicked their heels and said:
>
> >Oh, please. You're asking Lucy to understand that a behavior can be
> >genetic in a dog, which IMO is asking a great deal.
Yeah, what do I know about genetically determined behavior? At some
point in the evolution of Franklin's breed a mutation occurred that
determined a propensity for sock-swallowing; and, considering the fact
that this acquired behavior conferred such an evolutionary advantage to
the breed, natural selection favored it all the time until it was
passed on to Franklin's parents and grandparents, and hopefully to
Franklin's offspring, so that such a valuable trait wouldn't, God
forbid, be lost due to some other random mutation quirk. Nice how
genetics work, in Sally's world!
> >It's ironic that Lucy (whose tone from the get-go is much more
> >sarcastic and confrontational than would seem warranted) should
> >reappear just now, isn't it?
"Ironic?" About as ironic as any random event, and as probable as a dog
being born with a taste for socks.
> >Mustang Sally
>
> oh I know, and I fed the troll.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, good-hearted Janet! I was STARVING!
But - can you tell me what exactly is it that makes me a troll, when
posting on topic on a dog behavior matter?
> Even they need treats once in awhile,
> no? OK - maybe not! The holiday spirit must have gotten the better
> of me.
Yes, Janet, you're way too good. Don't let it become a habit, though -
you might find it difficult next time when having to use your pretty
choke collar on a dog.
Lucy
Janet B
heels and said:
>
>Oh, I'd have tried distraction and praise, but hey, what do *I* know?
not much apparently. exactly when would distract and praise and from
what?
lucy...@claque.net
> On 4 Dec 2005 00:06:06 -0800, lucy...@claque.net, clicked their
> heels and said:
>
> >
> >Oh, I'd have tried distraction and praise, but hey, what do *I* know?
>
> not much apparently.
Well, at least *I* don't claim to be an expert.
> exactly when would distract and praise and from
> what?
I'd start by stopping the kind of training you've been using on
Franklin - the kind that made him never dare to touch a sock in your
presence (perhaps out of fear of those "unwanted consequences" that you
don't seem so eager to talk about), but doesn't prevent him from
swallowing a sock the moment you're not there.
I'd start by praising him every time I see him looking at me. I'd
distract with a sound and instantly praise each time he began to do
whatever I didn't want him to do. I'd praise him when we walk and he
sees something tempting and wishes to take it. I'd praise him when he
stops and sniffs and sniffs, I'd praise him when I wanted him to go
faster and I'd praise him when I wanted him to slow down.
Then, after he got accustomed to being praised all the time, whatever
he was doing, I'd try to tempt him with socks. Once he was certain that
"unwanted consequences" weren't about to happen, I guess he'd dare to
take a sock in my presence. If he does, I'd instantly distract him with
a sound and at the same time praise him. The moment he tries to touch
the sock again I'd distract him again and praise. I'd repeat,
alternating the direction from which the sound comes, until he shows no
interest in socks anymore. I'd repeat the whole procedure in four
different locations.
Oh, and each time I leave the dogs alone at home I'd use the technique
described by Jerry in order to deal with separation anxiety (which I'd
dare to bet is your dog's problem, rather than a "sock fetish").
Lucy
Janet B
heels and said:
>
>I'd start by stopping the kind of training you've been using on
>Franklin - the kind that made him never dare to touch a sock in your
>presence (perhaps out of fear of those "unwanted consequences" that you
>don't seem so eager to talk about), but doesn't prevent him from
>swallowing a sock the moment you're not there.
Too bad. You lose. No kind of training that has made him not dare to
to much.
>I'd start by praising him every time I see him looking at me.
OK, all day long.....
>I'd
>distract with a sound and instantly praise each time he began to do
>whatever I didn't want him to do.
He doesn't generally do things I don't want him to do. Maybe lick
Lucy's teeth too much?
> I'd praise him when we walk and he
>sees something tempting and wishes to take it.
Too bad - he never does that.
>I'd praise him when he
>stops and sniffs and sniffs, I'd praise him when I wanted him to go
>faster and I'd praise him when I wanted him to slow down.
He heels quite nicely as well as walks casually wuite nicely - how
could I possibly follow your inane recommendations?
>Then, after he got accustomed to being praised all the time, whatever
>he was doing, I'd try to tempt him with socks. Once he was certain that
>"unwanted consequences" weren't about to happen, I guess he'd dare to
>take a sock in my presence.
You're really an imbecile.
>If he does, I'd instantly distract him with
>a sound and at the same time praise him. The moment he tries to touch
>the sock again I'd distract him again and praise. I'd repeat,
>alternating the direction from which the sound comes, until he shows no
>interest in socks anymore. I'd repeat the whole procedure in four
>different locations.
Why 4? Why not 3? or 5? or 6? This is soooooo technical. Should I
just turn my body to alternate sound direction or should I go into
another room (that makes it hard, because he pretty much follows me
everywhere).
>
>Oh, and each time I leave the dogs alone at home I'd use the technique
>described by Jerry in order to deal with separation anxiety (which I'd
>dare to bet is your dog's problem, rather than a "sock fetish").
Uh, no. He hops onto his loveseat when I leave and I can't see much
evidence that he's left it, whenever I come home. He's free to of
course, as he has full freedom in the house and has since he was a
puppy. You dare a lot sweetie - and you're stil an imbecile.
sighthounds & siberians
I have Lucy killfiled, but maybe someone else can answer a question
that popped into my mind after reading her training recommendations to
Janet (which is funny in itself). How does the dog tell the
difference between when he's being praised to reinforce a wanted
behavior and when he's being praised as a 'distraction' for unwanted
behavior?
Mustang Sally
Melinda Shore
sighthounds & siberians <x...@ncweb.com> wrote:
>How does the dog tell the
>difference between when he's being praised to reinforce a wanted
>behavior and when he's being praised as a 'distraction' for unwanted
>behavior?
Lucy can't discriminate from among basic dog behaviors (for
example, her inability to recognize predatory behavior) so
she's just praising willy-nilly, anyway.
With all due respect to the those trying to talk sense to
Lucy, in my experience on Usenet people who try to have a
rational conversation with a raving moron kind of deserve
what they get.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence
that they ever existed. -- Dwight D Eisenhower
Janet B
their heels and said:
>
>With all due respect to the those trying to talk sense to
>Lucy, in my experience on Usenet people who try to have a
>rational conversation with a raving moron kind of deserve
>what they get.
I know - I'm killfiling her now so I'm not even tempted to respond to
her drivel. Too much else to do here than entertain myself with her
silliness.
lucy...@claque.net
Janet B wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2005 04:13:59 -0800, lucy...@claque.net, clicked their
> heels and said:
>
> >
> >I'd start by stopping the kind of training you've been using on
> >Franklin - the kind that made him never dare to touch a sock in your
> >presence (perhaps out of fear of those "unwanted consequences" that you
> >don't seem so eager to talk about), but doesn't prevent him from
> >swallowing a sock the moment you're not there.
>
> Too bad. You lose. No kind of training that has made him not dare to
> to much.
Then what is your explanation for the fact that he doesn't touch a sock
in your presence, but would swallow it as soon as you're out of the
room?
> >I'd start by praising him every time I see him looking at me.
>
> OK, all day long.....
Yeah, that's the idea.
> >I'd
> >distract with a sound and instantly praise each time he began to do
> >whatever I didn't want him to do.
>
> He doesn't generally do things I don't want him to do. Maybe lick
> Lucy's teeth too much?
Whatever he does and you'd prefer he didn't do. You know, the kind of
things for which you use your choke collar on him.
> > I'd praise him when we walk and he
> >sees something tempting and wishes to take it.
>
> Too bad - he never does that.
It was just an example, Janet. I'm sure you got the idea.
> >I'd praise him when he
> >stops and sniffs and sniffs, I'd praise him when I wanted him to go
> >faster and I'd praise him when I wanted him to slow down.
>
> He heels quite nicely as well as walks casually wuite nicely -
That is, except when he is wearing a harness and pulls.
> how
> could I possibly follow your inane recommendations?
You, Janet, asked about how to distract and praise; I told you what I'd
do. I don't expect you to do anything at all - except, if you have an
ounce of honesty left, to admit that your dog DOES have at least one
behavior problem (sock-swallowing when you're not there) which your
TRAINING is incapable to solve.
Lucy