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