Question:

F—-d if I know. Wouldn’t say I agree or disagree. I kind of just take the advice stuff and leave the theory stuff to the ‘behaviorists’. I’m just looking for strategies/long term learning tools for teaching the boy. (More like #’s 4 to 12–sorry can’t quote them, I’m looking at the paper version, electronic is gone.) Certainly, I do find Fiver’s optimum ‘learning/working’ mood is in the middle, kind of like an elevated-paying-attention thing. He can get *way* too worked up to focus, but then again maybe that’s my shortcoming in directing and using that energy. I’ve seen our clicker trainer get him worked*up* and work*ing*, but man I think you really have to know what you’re doing. For me I’ll take slightly excited, and focussed on me, cause the boy can spin when he goes! (Cute as hell, but whooopeee!!) Altho’, I will say I’ve found using fetch very helpful in teaching ‘give’ and ‘off’. He loves to play so much that you can see the gears turning as he restrains himself from grabbing the ball from my hand. But overall, Fiver sounds alot like Harlan — alert but calm is a good learning moment! Lately it’s been too damn hot for the little guy to get interested in training sometimes. When that happens I kind of miss the energy of the more "excited" sessions. Kind of looks at me with a "*you* touch the effing stick" look, "I’ll just stretch out on this cool linoleum". Elisa Harley & Fiver (Harlan, ya gotta learn to like fire. It’s neat! Scares my mom!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m so happy Ludwig teased these rules out of you. Printing them off > to put in my doggy file. Thanks so much for your perseverance. >Just curious… did you agree with all of them? In particular I thought >numbers 2 & 3 sounded odd. I think dogs do communicate, which makes >perfect sense as they are a social animal. Also, in my own (limited) >experience, Harlan learns best when he’s alert but calm; he has a lot >of trouble focusing otherwise. I suppose it’s possible that I’m >misinterpreting the situation. > >2)Dogs do not communicate i.e., they do not exhibit a behavior or > >display a physical signal with the intention of making another animal > >aware of their thoughts or emotions. > >3) Dogs learn best when they are in a highly excited mood. >–Terri & Harlan >– >Also, just when you think you have them all >down——Llama spit comes around in one form or >another. >– Frederick Hassen 5/23/99 >Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

> I’m trying to eschew obsfucation,

Baloney. If that were true, you wouldn’t use phrases like "eschew obsfuscation". My guess is that you saw that phrase in a tag line and didn’t get the joke. –Terri & Harlan — Also, just when you think you have them all down——Llama spit comes around in one form or another. — Frederick Hassen 5/23/99 Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

> I’m so happy Ludwig teased these rules out of you. Printing them off > to put in my doggy file. Thanks so much for your perseverance.

Just curious… did you agree with all of them? In particular I thought numbers 2 & 3 sounded odd. I think dogs do communicate, which makes perfect sense as they are a social animal. Also, in my own (limited) experience, Harlan learns best when he’s alert but calm; he has a lot of trouble focusing otherwise. I suppose it’s possible that I’m misinterpreting the situation. >2)Dogs do not communicate i.e., they do not exhibit a behavior or >display a physical signal with the intention of making another animal >aware of their thoughts or emotions. >3) Dogs learn best when they are in a highly excited mood.

–Terri & Harlan — Also, just when you think you have them all down——Llama spit comes around in one form or another. — Frederick Hassen 5/23/99 Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Oops sounds like I disagree with one of "Cindy" (not Cindi) or Marilyn. I don’t know enuff to agree or disagree. I’m just soaking it in! Sorry, Elisa Harley & Fiver-puppy

Sometimes just reading – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->an argument between someone you agree with and someone you disagree with can >be very educational. (Like Cindi and Marilyn — I’m learning from both.)

Response:

Hello E., This would be funny if it were teasing. It’s true, and most of us here have not a clue about it. It’s truly sad. Jerry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m so happy Ludwig teased these rules out of you. Printing them off to put > in my doggy file. Thanks so much for your perseverance. > Elisa Harley & Fiver-puppy (55lbs of BC&LAB — pure NRG&LUV)

Response:

Hello mali-cious, If you had any brains, you wouldn’t be making fun of this. People are getting misinformation, and their dogs are suffering and being given up and destroyed because of it. You think that’s funny? I’m trying to eschew obsfucation, and all you are doing in being annoying, contradictory, and infantile. If you knew enough, you wouldn’t be shooting of your ignorant mouth. I suggest you keep you stupid comments to yourself, you don’t know enough yet about the issues to make an intelligent comment. I’m not trying to be rude or critical. You got any ideas you’d like to discuss? Lets get to it then. Otherwise, have a ringside seat, and hold your bets till as close to the bell as possible, the odds are changing too fast to risk wagering at this moment. Jerry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <<That’s why I’m not interested in your silly semantics, and all the fancy > terminology > and horse shit. >> > Spoken like a true sc(ientist)am artist!  Way to go Jerry! > — > Mali > "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, > then used against you." > "Yes, using your voice is CERTAINLY is a mistake, nowhere do I recommend > that." "Always follow the sound distraction with prolonged, non physical > praise, for at least five to fifteen seconds."– Jerry Howe on correcting > your puppy during housebreaking. > Hello Ludwig, > I don’t think you’ll mind me stepping in here between you guys, to set you > straight > once again, would you, Ludwig? > I won’t speak for Canis55, he can handle his own business. But I did want > to tell > you, that when I first saw Canis55 information, I was very interested in > it. It all > makes perfect sense, if you understand things like instinct and behavior. > > >Dear Sir, > > Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for > thirty > > years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in > protection, in > > field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think > of some > > of the other people in the newsgroup. > Then, you would be talking about Fraud Die? What the hell does he have to > do with > dog training? He has a nice dog, no doubt, but he know little about > training. It > happens with lots of people that have been around the ring for thirty > years, no? > > Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are full > of it > > and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the sun > doesn’t > > shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong. > He tells > > them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice. > Correct. We didn’t imagine these things. We learned these things, because > we weren’t > happy with losing a high percentage of dogs in the effort to train them, > that’s > why.  I don’t know anything about Canis55 and Master, but I know I didn’t > see a > future in dog training thirty-six years ago doing it the way you guys do. > It was > abhorrent then, as it is now. > My only questions, Ludwig, is howe could you be so complacent with that? > You must > have seen the same percentage of dogs that don’t make out in their life > successfully, the ones you all blame with having genetic problems? The > ones that > have to be neutered, with no noticeable benefit to their behavior? You > must have > seen the same dogs going to the same classes week after week after week, > getting > jerked and choked and yanked, and shocked, with no noticeable benefit to > their > behavior? You never noticed that? Koehler is a monster, and you quote him! > > Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same > basic > > advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that > generally would > > generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this > person gives > > credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of dog > > training, not that old, nasty stuff. > Are you talking about me, or Canis55? You know, we both have radically > different > methods. I learned quite a bit from just a few minutes of work. I’m sure > Canis55 > learned quite a bit from my work. > You got a problem with whether our stuff is new or not? Who cares, there > is nothing > new under the sun. Every thought you could possibly have is being thought > by many > others, even as you think it. You are just not interested in learning > something new, > or old, or different. You are satisfied with mediocrity. You think it’s > top shelf, > it isn’t. > > I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – creative > is > > perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or similar > advice > > that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it. > I can’t comment on that, I don’t particularly follow individual posters > here. But > what you fail to realize, is, that you don’t know all that you think you > do, and you > are generally not bad, but that doesn’t cut it. Not bad means somebody > isn’t getting > the best there is, right? > Are you willing to settle for second best? You are. > > I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you > or even > > follow your reasoning in posts. > Because you don’t have any basis to understand what either Canis55 or > myself are > talking about. We’re going to set you on your ass, and you are arguing > semantics. I > don’t care what you call it, if it works consistently, and causes no nasty > damage > like you guys see all the time, then someone is right, and someone is > wrong. > I am not going to be the one with egg on my face. You have either got to > improve > your methods, or find someplace where people just don’t give a damn. But > it ain’t > gonna fly around here. > > Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of reality if > > you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of > reference. > And for that, I am very grateful. > > It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated > Liberation > > Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any > common ground > > in the two theories. > Well, I differ with you on just one little itty bitty point… > If our free market capitalist, or the lib theologist are either right or > wrong, > nobody’s dog is going to die over the argument. Here, we’re playing for > keeps. Bad > advice causes dogs to die here. > That’s why I’m not interested in your silly semantics, and all the fancy > terminology > and horse shit. If your handling and training dogs with behavior problems > with > force, there is an unacceptably high number of dogs that will be > destroyed. > Have you ever heard of post traumatic stress syndrome? I happens in dogs, > just like > in children, and soldiers, and abused wives. > But, since I’m on a roll, why don’t you continue to scroll down the > page… > > Dog FAQs: > > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > > rec.pets.dogs.info > > Hello Fraud Die, > > You gonna remind me something? I got a pretty good memory. Whassup? > > >> Let me re- remind everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING in Jerry’s > > >> manual that is original. > > I disagree, but you’d know better. What’s your gripe? Misrepresentation > of > > the truth? That I’m the grand master of deception? That I’m The > Antichrist? > > >> He didn’t invent scaring dogs with shake cans, > > First, you burn dogs, and then try to accuse me of being rude? Scaring > dogs? > > You eat it. You can’t be serious. Any one looking at you has got to have > an > > iron gut. > > According to the Wits’ End Dog Training Method, the dogs aren’t being > > sacred. Done the way you understand it, it won’t work, and will scare > the > > dogs. > > Read the manual. You haven’t. You just skimmed it to see if you could > find > > fault, you couldn’t. Remember, Fraud Die? You haven’t got anything to > > criticize in my manual. You don’t use it because you don’t understand > it. > > That’s because of your limited knowledge of dog behavior. > > >> he didn’t invent claiming to train ‘positive only’ when he doesn’t, > > >> etc., etc. > > No, I didn’t invent anything except Doggy Do Right, the cure for > behavior > > problems in dogs. It’s guaranteed forever. Two years warranty. Free > program > > upgrades. Immediate 24/7 customer service and free advice. You don’t get > > better than BIOSOUND Scientific. And you know it. > > >> There are tons of people that all do this, and all have > > >> little to no success in trying circumstances——or competitive > > >> situations. > > There are tons of people like yourself, too stupid to follow the simple > > directions. Too stupid to avoid making constant corrections and constant > > reinforcement. Too stupid to think for themselves, and stand out from > the > > crowd. People stupid enough to listen to you, ignorant enough to follow > > Koehler… Millions of people listen to Koehler and jackasses like > you… > > "Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and judge > > things by reason’s way, not by popular say." Montaigne > > Want to stop me? Set Koehlers people after me like you did O’l

… read more »

Response:

MaliMore; Certainly this is not your first experience with internet groups, discussion, or gatherings of people. Therefore I am surprised that you would evaluate individuals and lump them according to whether they hate the one guy *you* hate. So quick to judge, you’re cutting yourself off from ever learning. I would recommend reading posts from the people you’ve killfiled. Canis’s stuff is *very* helpful. Marilyn is good too. Sometimes just reading an argument between someone you agree with and someone you disagree with can be very educational. (Like Cindi and Marilyn — I’m learning from both.) This is where ideas live. This is where people explore language and hone their communication skills. (Often people who think they disagree are simply stuck on semantics.) Delete Jerry’s posts if you will. I am not surprised that he gives your blood pressure a jolt, but read Marilyn and Canis, if only to test and solidify your own thoughts. These are complex, intelligent individuals. It ain’t so black and white. Elisa Harley & Fiver, the dog who’s named for a rabbit (Hey, is that like a boy named Sue?) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >was replying to me :O)  I was going to start getting indignant!  <looking >down, feeling chest, checking pants>  Ok, I’m still female……that’s MA’AM >TO YOU!  hee hee >And canis, you seem to be saying that the only reason you agree with Jerry >is because he is "going against the grain".  Well, pick someone else to side >with that is causing an uproar because you are fighting a losing battle, >sorry to be the one to break the news. >I understand that there are reasons to respect some people that "go against >the grain".  As Marilyn said, some of the greatest people that have done >some of the greatest things were thought to be "strange".  I have never been >referred to as "normal" myself (but then again, what is normal?).  However, >I pick and choose who I respect, by how much they DESERVE my respect.  As >for Jerry, he has only shown me that he deserves 10 fold of the scorn that >has been showered on him thus far.  Ever heard, "pick your battles"?  Well, >it’s about the same thing.  You’re fighting a losing battle, and I fear that >you are going to be sorely disappointed when it is all said and done. >– >Mali >"You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, >then used against you." >I really need to put something else in here, Jerry, please say something >idiotic, so that I can quote you…….nevermind, you’ve said enough. > Dear Sir, > Imagine you lived in New York City. Imagine a big part of your job was > to relieve dogs of behavior problems. Imagine the degree of impact these > behavior problem would have on a dog owner’s life in an urban > environment like New York City. Imagine that the standard approaches you > were using were and are ineffective. > That, dear sir, is the kind of situation that inspires innovation and an > attitude of experimentation. Imagine some of your "experiments" yielded > surprising results. Imagine, your sense of betrayal, as you tried to > make sense of what you were now seeing, namely that most of what we > know about dogs is wrong. > Now imagine, you are asked–politely or otherwise–to explain why what > you are doing works better than any other method you have seen. Imagine > if you fail to explain why it works, or your audience fails to > understand–remember, it goes against everything they think they know > about dogs–why or how it works, then they will simply insist that it > can’t possibly be working. > Now, sir, you are standing in my shoes. Look around. What do you feel? > Do you feel safe? Do you dare to put yourself on the line and make a > statement that might be challenged? Do you step up to the chopping block > and utter what you know to be the truth? >              A smile, hereby extended to Mr. Jerry Howe. >                  A courtly bow to the Lady Rammell. >                Ave! The Master. Morituri te salutant. > > >Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out > the > <scibbling on > > I wouldn’t put Marilyn or Canis or really anybody else in the same > catagory as > > Jerry.  They’re a little strange with some of their logic and > reasoning perhaps, > > but Jerry pretty much belongs in a catagory all by himself. > > Dog FAQs: > > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > > rec.pets.dogs.info > — > I trains’em as I sees’em. > Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I’m so happy Ludwig teased these rules out of you. Printing them off to put in my doggy file. Thanks so much for your perseverance. Elisa Harley & Fiver-puppy (55lbs of BC&LAB — pure NRG&LUV) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Dear Ludwig, > >Dear Sir, > Oh no!  Not ‘Sir’!!  Say it ain’t so! > I’ve spent so long avoiding ‘Sir’ – watching cartoons and playing >Pokemon.  And > here you go and ruin it by calling me ‘Sir’. > >Imagine <Snip> > Oh, playtime!  Goodie.  Let’s play imagine then. > Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for >thirty > years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in >protection, in > field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think >of some > of the other people in the newsgroup. > Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are >full of it > and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the >sun doesn’t > shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong. > He tells > them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice. > Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same >basic > advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that >generally would > generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this >person gives > credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of >dog > training, not that old, nasty stuff. >Some of this stuff is of course standard, Ludwig. It makes sense that It >would often be the case that I’m giving the same "basic advice" In some >instances I have–perhaps, (I would need to go back and check to be >sure)– been in disagreement with why or how it is working. We might >only agree that it works. In other instances we might actually agree on >why or how it works. I more than likely, got the advice from one of the >trainers I’m so often criticizing. I may have modified it, or I may be >using it in exactly the same way. Faulkner and Hemingway both used the >same tools. They both studied Shakespeare. > I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – >creative is > perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or >similar advice > that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it. > I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you >or even > follow your reasoning in posts.  Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of >reality if > you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of >reference. > It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated >Liberation > Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any >common ground > in the two theories. >I would hope the common ground is not in the theories we hold or >subscribe to but in the fact that we both want to foster well adjusted, >stable, healthy, obedient dogs. >In a nut-shell, I’m saying: >1) Dogs are trainable because they have a genetic predisposition to >cooperate. >2)Dogs do not communicate i.e., they do not exhibit a behavior or >display a physical signal with the intention of making another animal >aware of their thoughts or emotions. >3) Dogs learn best when they are in a highly excited mood. >4) Dogs and especially puppies should be encouraged to gently bite and >mouth their owners. >5) Puppies should never be corrected. >6) All corrections an adult dog receives should be indirect and actually >drive the dog–either physically, emotionally, or both–into the handler >or owner. >7) Puppies and dogs should be taught to jump up on their owner and/or >handler upon command. >8) *All* dogs should play tug-of-war with their owners. >9) Do not dominate or intimidate your dog. >10) Anything that promotes a social resistance to the handler should be >avoided in training. >11) Do everything you can to promote the dog’s social attraction toward >yourself. Modify any training exercise you perform to achieve this aim. >12) Find a game the dog loves to play and make that the focal point of >your training. >If this is the same advice "these know nothings" are giving out, then I >haven’t been here long enough to recognize what they’re actually saying. >Neither have the people *requesting* the advice. >Personally speaking, I have shown you nothing but respect on this board, >Ludwig. Since I subscribed here several months ago, I have admired your >writing style and your ability to offer advice without exposing yourself >to criticism. That’s not a shot, Ludwig. It’s a talent I admire. I can’t >tell you how many times I’ve read one of your posts and leaned back >smiling and saying, "This guy’s brilliant." >Now if you’re telling me here, and by the tone of your post that may be >exactly what you’re implying, that you have taken exception to some of >my previous posts because you are a dominance oriented/traditional >trainer, then this is the first indication to me, that you are a >dominance trainer, or even that you’ve been offended. It is good I >should know that. >On the other hand, if the tone of your post would imply that your >sensibilities are offended by my bold claims of having adopted a >"better" system, or by my unabashed criticism of the techniques of >many who have been training dogs longer than I have, and in arenas that >I have mindfully and intentionally not commented upon, then that would >be good to know too. >If the tone of your post is implying that you simply can’t stand my >un-schooled and seemingly undisciplined writing style (It is drastically >different from your own, hence my admiration.), then consider that it’s >evolving even as I type this. That is perhaps the single most important >gift everyone here has offered me these past few months. You have all >been my copy-editors, so to speak. For this I thank you all >unreservedly. >Good night, Ludwig >Good night and good training >canis55 >Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

<<That’s why I’m not interested in your silly semantics, and all the fancy terminology and horse shit. >> Spoken like a true sc(ientist)am artist!  Way to go Jerry! — Mali "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you." "Yes, using your voice is CERTAINLY is a mistake, nowhere do I recommend that." "Always follow the sound distraction with prolonged, non physical praise, for at least five to fifteen seconds."– Jerry Howe on correcting your puppy during housebreaking.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hello Ludwig, > I don’t think you’ll mind me stepping in here between you guys, to set you straight > once again, would you, Ludwig? > I won’t speak for Canis55, he can handle his own business. But I did want to tell > you, that when I first saw Canis55 information, I was very interested in it. It all > makes perfect sense, if you understand things like instinct and behavior. > >Dear Sir, > Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for thirty > years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in protection, in > field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think of some > of the other people in the newsgroup. > Then, you would be talking about Fraud Die? What the hell does he have to do with > dog training? He has a nice dog, no doubt, but he know little about training. It > happens with lots of people that have been around the ring for thirty years, no? > Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are full of it > and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the sun doesn’t > shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong. He tells > them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice. > Correct. We didn’t imagine these things. We learned these things, because we weren’t > happy with losing a high percentage of dogs in the effort to train them, that’s > why.  I don’t know anything about Canis55 and Master, but I know I didn’t see a > future in dog training thirty-six years ago doing it the way you guys do. It was > abhorrent then, as it is now. > My only questions, Ludwig, is howe could you be so complacent with that? You must > have seen the same percentage of dogs that don’t make out in their life > successfully, the ones you all blame with having genetic problems? The ones that > have to be neutered, with no noticeable benefit to their behavior? You must have > seen the same dogs going to the same classes week after week after week, getting > jerked and choked and yanked, and shocked, with no noticeable benefit to their > behavior? You never noticed that? Koehler is a monster, and you quote him! > Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same basic > advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that generally would > generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this person gives > credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of dog > training, not that old, nasty stuff. > Are you talking about me, or Canis55? You know, we both have radically different > methods. I learned quite a bit from just a few minutes of work. I’m sure Canis55 > learned quite a bit from my work. > You got a problem with whether our stuff is new or not? Who cares, there is nothing > new under the sun. Every thought you could possibly have is being thought by many > others, even as you think it. You are just not interested in learning something new, > or old, or different. You are satisfied with mediocrity. You think it’s top shelf, > it isn’t. > I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – creative is > perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or similar advice > that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it. > I can’t comment on that, I don’t particularly follow individual posters here. But > what you fail to realize, is, that you don’t know all that you think you do, and you > are generally not bad, but that doesn’t cut it. Not bad means somebody isn’t getting > the best there is, right? > Are you willing to settle for second best? You are. > I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you or even > follow your reasoning in posts. > Because you don’t have any basis to understand what either Canis55 or myself are > talking about. We’re going to set you on your ass, and you are arguing semantics. I > don’t care what you call it, if it works consistently, and causes no nasty damage > like you guys see all the time, then someone is right, and someone is wrong. > I am not going to be the one with egg on my face. You have either got to improve > your methods, or find someplace where people just don’t give a damn. But it ain’t > gonna fly around here. > Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of reality if > you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of reference. > And for that, I am very grateful. > It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated Liberation > Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any common ground > in the two theories. > Well, I differ with you on just one little itty bitty point… > If our free market capitalist, or the lib theologist are either right or wrong, > nobody’s dog is going to die over the argument. Here, we’re playing for keeps. Bad > advice causes dogs to die here. > That’s why I’m not interested in your silly semantics, and all the fancy terminology > and horse shit. If your handling and training dogs with behavior problems with > force, there is an unacceptably high number of dogs that will be destroyed. > Have you ever heard of post traumatic stress syndrome? I happens in dogs, just like > in children, and soldiers, and abused wives. > But, since I’m on a roll, why don’t you continue to scroll down the page… > Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info > Hello Fraud Die, > You gonna remind me something? I got a pretty good memory. Whassup? > >> Let me re- remind everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING in Jerry’s > >> manual that is original. > I disagree, but you’d know better. What’s your gripe? Misrepresentation of > the truth? That I’m the grand master of deception? That I’m The Antichrist? > >> He didn’t invent scaring dogs with shake cans, > First, you burn dogs, and then try to accuse me of being rude? Scaring dogs? > You eat it. You can’t be serious. Any one looking at you has got to have an > iron gut. > According to the Wits’ End Dog Training Method, the dogs aren’t being > sacred. Done the way you understand it, it won’t work, and will scare the > dogs. > Read the manual. You haven’t. You just skimmed it to see if you could find > fault, you couldn’t. Remember, Fraud Die? You haven’t got anything to > criticize in my manual. You don’t use it because you don’t understand it. > That’s because of your limited knowledge of dog behavior. > >> he didn’t invent claiming to train ‘positive only’ when he doesn’t, > >> etc., etc. > No, I didn’t invent anything except Doggy Do Right, the cure for behavior > problems in dogs. It’s guaranteed forever. Two years warranty. Free program > upgrades. Immediate 24/7 customer service and free advice. You don’t get > better than BIOSOUND Scientific. And you know it. > >> There are tons of people that all do this, and all have > >> little to no success in trying circumstances——or competitive > >> situations. > There are tons of people like yourself, too stupid to follow the simple > directions. Too stupid to avoid making constant corrections and constant > reinforcement. Too stupid to think for themselves, and stand out from the > crowd. People stupid enough to listen to you, ignorant enough to follow > Koehler… Millions of people listen to Koehler and jackasses like you… > "Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and judge > things by reason’s way, not by popular say." Montaigne > Want to stop me? Set Koehlers people after me like you did O’l Cap’n > Haggerty. Tell them to sue my dirty ass. Go ahead. I’ll see them in court… > >>  Don’t take my word for it——go look up the top 50 people > >> in any competitive dogsport, and see if they are doing what Jerry is > >> doing. > They will, or they won’t that’s up to them. Most of them aren’t bright > enough to do anything differently. That’s why you survive. You live off of > the misery of innocent dogs, and insidious, ignorant people like yourself > that will subject their dogs to torment in the name of training. It is not > necessary. You don’t understand proper handling and training techniques, > that’s why you rely on force and abuse. > I don’t engage in sports. My dogs are trained to work real jobs in the real > world. Your dogs make or loose points. My dogs play for keeps. > >> I’ve had alot of them on my show if you need to write them > >> yourself. > Anyone foolish enough to entertain your audience deserves whatever criticism > is offered. You can’t teach someone who knows it all. You, know little, and > think you know it all. Same obstacle. You just don’t know Howe to train. > >> The only thing that Jerry MAY have had anything at all to do > >> with inventing (I’m not even sure others haven’t tried the

… read more »

Response:

Hello Ludwig, I don’t think you’ll mind me stepping in here between you guys, to set you straight once again, would you, Ludwig? I won’t speak for Canis55, he can handle his own business. But I did want to tell you, that when I first saw Canis55 information, I was very interested in it. It all makes perfect sense, if you understand things like instinct and behavior. >Dear Sir, > Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for thirty > years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in protection, in > field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think of some > of the other people in the newsgroup.

Then, you would be talking about Fraud Die? What the hell does he have to do with dog training? He has a nice dog, no doubt, but he know little about training. It happens with lots of people that have been around the ring for thirty years, no? > Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are full of it > and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the sun doesn’t > shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong.  He tells > them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice.

Correct. We didn’t imagine these things. We learned these things, because we weren’t happy with losing a high percentage of dogs in the effort to train them, that’s why.  I don’t know anything about Canis55 and Master, but I know I didn’t see a future in dog training thirty-six years ago doing it the way you guys do. It was abhorrent then, as it is now. My only questions, Ludwig, is howe could you be so complacent with that? You must have seen the same percentage of dogs that don’t make out in their life successfully, the ones you all blame with having genetic problems? The ones that have to be neutered, with no noticeable benefit to their behavior? You must have seen the same dogs going to the same classes week after week after week, getting jerked and choked and yanked, and shocked, with no noticeable benefit to their behavior? You never noticed that? Koehler is a monster, and you quote him! > Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same basic > advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that generally would > generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this person gives > credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of dog > training, not that old, nasty stuff.

Are you talking about me, or Canis55? You know, we both have radically different methods. I learned quite a bit from just a few minutes of work. I’m sure Canis55 learned quite a bit from my work. You got a problem with whether our stuff is new or not? Who cares, there is nothing new under the sun. Every thought you could possibly have is being thought by many others, even as you think it. You are just not interested in learning something new, or old, or different. You are satisfied with mediocrity. You think it’s top shelf, it isn’t. > I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – creative is > perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or similar advice > that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it.

I can’t comment on that, I don’t particularly follow individual posters here. But what you fail to realize, is, that you don’t know all that you think you do, and you are generally not bad, but that doesn’t cut it. Not bad means somebody isn’t getting the best there is, right? Are you willing to settle for second best? You are. > I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you or even > follow your reasoning in posts.

Because you don’t have any basis to understand what either Canis55 or myself are talking about. We’re going to set you on your ass, and you are arguing semantics. I don’t care what you call it, if it works consistently, and causes no nasty damage like you guys see all the time, then someone is right, and someone is wrong. I am not going to be the one with egg on my face. You have either got to improve your methods, or find someplace where people just don’t give a damn. But it ain’t gonna fly around here. > Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of reality if > you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of reference.

And for that, I am very grateful. > It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated Liberation > Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any common ground > in the two theories.

Well, I differ with you on just one little itty bitty point… If our free market capitalist, or the lib theologist are either right or wrong, nobody’s dog is going to die over the argument. Here, we’re playing for keeps. Bad advice causes dogs to die here. That’s why I’m not interested in your silly semantics, and all the fancy terminology and horse shit. If your handling and training dogs with behavior problems with force, there is an unacceptably high number of dogs that will be destroyed. Have you ever heard of post traumatic stress syndrome? I happens in dogs, just like in children, and soldiers, and abused wives. But, since I’m on a roll, why don’t you continue to scroll down the page… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info > Hello Fraud Die, > You gonna remind me something? I got a pretty good memory. Whassup? >> Let me re- remind everyone.  There is absolutely NOTHING in Jerry’s >> manual that is original. > I disagree, but you’d know better. What’s your gripe? Misrepresentation of > the truth? That I’m the grand master of deception? That I’m The Antichrist? >> He didn’t invent scaring dogs with shake cans, > First, you burn dogs, and then try to accuse me of being rude? Scaring dogs? > You eat it. You can’t be serious. Any one looking at you has got to have an > iron gut. > According to the Wits’ End Dog Training Method, the dogs aren’t being > sacred. Done the way you understand it, it won’t work, and will scare the > dogs. > Read the manual. You haven’t. You just skimmed it to see if you could find > fault, you couldn’t. Remember, Fraud Die? You haven’t got anything to > criticize in my manual. You don’t use it because you don’t understand it. > That’s because of your limited knowledge of dog behavior. >> he didn’t invent claiming to train ‘positive only’ when he doesn’t, >> etc., etc. > No, I didn’t invent anything except Doggy Do Right, the cure for behavior > problems in dogs. It’s guaranteed forever. Two years warranty. Free program > upgrades. Immediate 24/7 customer service and free advice. You don’t get > better than BIOSOUND Scientific. And you know it. >> There are tons of people that all do this, and all have >> little to no success in trying circumstances——or competitive >> situations. > There are tons of people like yourself, too stupid to follow the simple > directions. Too stupid to avoid making constant corrections and constant > reinforcement. Too stupid to think for themselves, and stand out from the > crowd. People stupid enough to listen to you, ignorant enough to follow > Koehler… Millions of people listen to Koehler and jackasses like you… > "Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and judge > things by reason’s way, not by popular say." Montaigne > Want to stop me? Set Koehlers people after me like you did O’l Cap’n > Haggerty. Tell them to sue my dirty ass. Go ahead. I’ll see them in court… >>  Don’t take my word for it——go look up the top 50 people >> in any competitive dogsport, and see if they are doing what Jerry is >> doing. > They will, or they won’t that’s up to them. Most of them aren’t bright > enough to do anything differently. That’s why you survive. You live off of > the misery of innocent dogs, and insidious, ignorant people like yourself > that will subject their dogs to torment in the name of training. It is not > necessary. You don’t understand proper handling and training techniques, > that’s why you rely on force and abuse. > I don’t engage in sports. My dogs are trained to work real jobs in the real > world. Your dogs make or loose points. My dogs play for keeps. >> I’ve had alot of them on my show if you need to write them >> yourself. > Anyone foolish enough to entertain your audience deserves whatever criticism > is offered. You can’t teach someone who knows it all. You, know little, and > think you know it all. Same obstacle. You just don’t know Howe to train. >> The only thing that Jerry MAY have had anything at all to do >> with inventing (I’m not even sure others haven’t tried the scam yet >> though), is his black box. > Thanks, Fraud Die, it took ten years of effort, study, and a small fortune. > It works like magick. It’s beyond comprehension. It’s the culmination of > thirty-six years of mind boggling work, back breaking effort, and inhuman > dedication to the best interests of the dogs I’ve worked with. >>  So as far as I can see, there is absolutely >> NO ONE that is in favor of HIS invention. > Right. I don’t go for giving referrals. They can be faked. I don’t care to > have someone else discuss my machine. Got questions? Ask me, not someone > else. > When I ask my satisfied customers to rate their satisfaction on a 1-10 > scale, they laugh, and won’t stop. It’s about 98% effective on problems like > barking, fear of thunder, separation anxiety, digging, chewing, any > obsessive or compulsive behavior, lots more, but I’ll forego all that. >> Marilyn and Robert can >> continue to quote Jerry’s imitation techniques, but I don’t see them >> buying a box either. > It’s

… read more »

Response:

Dear Ludwig, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dear Sir, > Oh no!  Not ‘Sir’!!  Say it ain’t so! > I’ve spent so long avoiding ‘Sir’ – watching cartoons and playing Pokemon.  And > here you go and ruin it by calling me ‘Sir’. >Imagine <Snip> > Oh, playtime!  Goodie.  Let’s play imagine then. > Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for thirty > years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in protection, in > field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think of some > of the other people in the newsgroup. > Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are full of it > and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the sun doesn’t > shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong.  He tells > them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice. > Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same basic > advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that generally would > generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this person gives > credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of dog > training, not that old, nasty stuff.

Some of this stuff is of course standard, Ludwig. It makes sense that It would often be the case that I’m giving the same "basic advice" In some instances I have–perhaps, (I would need to go back and check to be sure)– been in disagreement with why or how it is working. We might only agree that it works. In other instances we might actually agree on why or how it works. I more than likely, got the advice from one of the trainers I’m so often criticizing. I may have modified it, or I may be using it in exactly the same way. Faulkner and Hemingway both used the same tools. They both studied Shakespeare. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – creative is > perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or similar advice > that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it. > I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you or even > follow your reasoning in posts.  Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of reality if > you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of reference. > It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated Liberation > Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any common ground > in the two theories.

I would hope the common ground is not in the theories we hold or subscribe to but in the fact that we both want to foster well adjusted, stable, healthy, obedient dogs. In a nut-shell, I’m saying: 1) Dogs are trainable because they have a genetic predisposition to cooperate. 2)Dogs do not communicate i.e., they do not exhibit a behavior or display a physical signal with the intention of making another animal aware of their thoughts or emotions. 3) Dogs learn best when they are in a highly excited mood. 4) Dogs and especially puppies should be encouraged to gently bite and mouth their owners. 5) Puppies should never be corrected. 6) All corrections an adult dog receives should be indirect and actually drive the dog–either physically, emotionally, or both–into the handler or owner. 7) Puppies and dogs should be taught to jump up on their owner and/or handler upon command. *All* dogs should play tug-of-war with their owners. 9) Do not dominate or intimidate your dog. 10) Anything that promotes a social resistance to the handler should be avoided in training. 11) Do everything you can to promote the dog’s social attraction toward yourself. Modify any training exercise you perform to achieve this aim. 12) Find a game the dog loves to play and make that the focal point of your training. If this is the same advice "these know nothings" are giving out, then I haven’t been here long enough to recognize what they’re actually saying. Neither have the people *requesting* the advice. Personally speaking, I have shown you nothing but respect on this board, Ludwig. Since I subscribed here several months ago, I have admired your writing style and your ability to offer advice without exposing yourself to criticism. That’s not a shot, Ludwig. It’s a talent I admire. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read one of your posts and leaned back smiling and saying, "This guy’s brilliant." Now if you’re telling me here, and by the tone of your post that may be exactly what you’re implying, that you have taken exception to some of my previous posts because you are a dominance oriented/traditional trainer, then this is the first indication to me, that you are a dominance trainer, or even that you’ve been offended. It is good I should know that. On the other hand, if the tone of your post would imply that your sensibilities are offended by my bold claims of having adopted a "better" system, or by my unabashed criticism of the techniques of many who have been training dogs longer than I have, and in arenas that I have mindfully and intentionally not commented upon, then that would be good to know too. If the tone of your post is implying that you simply can’t stand my un-schooled and seemingly undisciplined writing style (It is drastically different from your own, hence my admiration.), then consider that it’s evolving even as I type this. That is perhaps the single most important gift everyone here has offered me these past few months. You have all been my copy-editors, so to speak. For this I thank you all unreservedly. Good night, Ludwig Good night and good training canis55 Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

>Dear Sir,

Oh no!  Not ‘Sir’!!  Say it ain’t so! I’ve spent so long avoiding ‘Sir’ – watching cartoons and playing Pokemon.  And here you go and ruin it by calling me ‘Sir’. >Imagine <Snip>

Oh, playtime!  Goodie.  Let’s play imagine then. Imagine if you will, someone who has worked successfully with dogs for thirty years, someone who is at the top of their field in obedience, in protection, in field work, in working with problem dogs – ME!?  Oh heavens no!  Think of some of the other people in the newsgroup. Now imagine if you will, someone comes and tells them that they are full of it and that they have their heads up their collective – well, where the sun doesn’t shine.  Tells them that everything they are doing and saying is wrong.  He tells them that they are screwing up dogs and giving people bad advice.   Imagine then if you will, this person then proceeds to give the same basic advice that these ‘know-nothings’ have been giving.  Advice that generally would generally be considered good standard advice.  Then of course this person gives credit for his ‘better’ advice to his discovering a ‘better’ way of dog training, not that old, nasty stuff.   I do find your logic and reasoning to be somewhat strange and – creative is perhaps the better word.  However, you often come to the same or similar advice that I would give to someone.  So I don’t really worry about it.   I also find it difficult to hold a discussion on dog training with you or even follow your reasoning in posts.  Your ‘Training Paradigm’ – view of reality if you will, is so skewed from mine that there is little common frame of reference. It’s like a dedicated Free Market Capitalist talking to a dedicated Liberation Theologist on the nature of ‘fair’ profit.  There is little if any common ground in the two theories.   Dog FAQs: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ rec.pets.dogs.info

Response:

was replying to me :O)  I was going to start getting indignant!  <looking down, feeling chest, checking pants>  Ok, I’m still female……that’s MA’AM TO YOU!  hee hee And canis, you seem to be saying that the only reason you agree with Jerry is because he is "going against the grain".  Well, pick someone else to side with that is causing an uproar because you are fighting a losing battle, sorry to be the one to break the news. I understand that there are reasons to respect some people that "go against the grain".  As Marilyn said, some of the greatest people that have done some of the greatest things were thought to be "strange".  I have never been referred to as "normal" myself (but then again, what is normal?).  However, I pick and choose who I respect, by how much they DESERVE my respect.  As for Jerry, he has only shown me that he deserves 10 fold of the scorn that has been showered on him thus far.  Ever heard, "pick your battles"?  Well, it’s about the same thing.  You’re fighting a losing battle, and I fear that you are going to be sorely disappointed when it is all said and done. — Mali "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you." I really need to put something else in here, Jerry, please say something idiotic, so that I can quote you…….nevermind, you’ve said enough.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dear Sir, > Imagine you lived in New York City. Imagine a big part of your job was > to relieve dogs of behavior problems. Imagine the degree of impact these > behavior problem would have on a dog owner’s life in an urban > environment like New York City. Imagine that the standard approaches you > were using were and are ineffective. > That, dear sir, is the kind of situation that inspires innovation and an > attitude of experimentation. Imagine some of your "experiments" yielded > surprising results. Imagine, your sense of betrayal, as you tried to > make sense of what you were now seeing, namely that most of what we > know about dogs is wrong. > Now imagine, you are asked–politely or otherwise–to explain why what > you are doing works better than any other method you have seen. Imagine > if you fail to explain why it works, or your audience fails to > understand–remember, it goes against everything they think they know > about dogs–why or how it works, then they will simply insist that it > can’t possibly be working. > Now, sir, you are standing in my shoes. Look around. What do you feel? > Do you feel safe? Do you dare to put yourself on the line and make a > statement that might be challenged? Do you step up to the chopping block > and utter what you know to be the truth? >              A smile, hereby extended to Mr. Jerry Howe. >                  A courtly bow to the Lady Rammell. >                Ave! The Master. Morituri te salutant. > >Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out > the > <scibbling on > I wouldn’t put Marilyn or Canis or really anybody else in the same > catagory as > Jerry.  They’re a little strange with some of their logic and > reasoning perhaps, > but Jerry pretty much belongs in a catagory all by himself. > Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info > — > I trains’em as I sees’em. > Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Hello Ludwig, Nice to have the opportunity to set you straight, once again. > Well, the exact advice I was given was ‘Lurk, Leach, Learn – then post’, but > many people misunderstand the ‘leach’ part so I usually leave that out.  There’s > a lot here you still don’t understand.  The regular posters have a common frame > of reference going back years, you only have a common frame of reference going > back weeks.

You think history is teaching anyone here? If that were so, we wouldn’t be chit chatting just now. We’d have never met. I’m not here for my pleasure, I don’t like having to be here, I waited, and watched, and was too late for a couple of dogs that suffered loss of their lives, because I was not prepared to enter this environment. I’m not computer savvy, and only got this machine for my work, never realizing that had I had one before, I could have reached out and touched as many people as I’ve had the opportunity to here. (Thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet.) > You tend to assume that you know enough about the people here to make > assumptions and you tend to explain too little.

Do you always try to confuse the issues with semantics? Obviously, you don’t have the ability to confront dog training issues straight on… We’re not talking about people and personalities. We’re talking about effective, no force, no confrontation, gentle training methods, Vs the same old crap you’ve been using for thirty years without concern for the best interest and welfare of the poor dogs and people you’ve unintentionally misled. Is that why you are resistant to change? Is it the embarrassment of facing the people you’ve taught wrong, even this week, that prevents you from progressing? Or is it inertia? Or apathy? I think it’s your false pride and colossal ego, standing in your way of development. I’m willing to believe that you are a victim of circumstances of our times, like I would have been, were it not for my propensity to not take no for and answer. When faced with a problem dog that had been abused, and facing destruction, I never said "put him down." I took the opportunity to figure out howe to rehabilitate him. I had unlimited resources in the kennel I grew up in. I didn’t have to worry about kennel space, or boarding fees, I could waive them. Money wasn’t going to weigh more than a dogs life. I didn’t have to meet deadlines. I did what I needed to do for many years, until I got it down pat. "Every man is the creature of the age in which he lives; very few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time." Voltaire > There is a *vast* range of abilities and experience with the regulars.

Indeed, that’s why I’m here. It’s lousy, and I’m here to change all that. Care to help? If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. I expected better of you, Ludwig, but then, I always expect the best from everyone. I live in a disappointing world. > Many of > them have been working with dogs for decades in capacities other than ‘pets’ – > field training, protection, Search and Rescue (SAR), obedience competition, > Rescue.  They are very familiar with and use all sorts of training styles and > have good reasons for why they do what they do.

Oh, is that so? Like, you all have all the knowledge, so why bother? More of the same old same old. Gets weary where I come from, and now that I’m here, it’s going to change for the better. >  Many of them are quite familiar > with different training styles and the names of the top trainers in both the US > and Britain are nothing new to them.

Good. Big deal. They know names, they don’t know dog training. The big names in the business are the biggest bullshitters. You are among them, you’ll get your just desserts. > The little recent exchange with Cindi (with an ‘i’), as an example.  Cindi was > using terms in a ‘technical’ behavior sense which is commonly done among the > regulars discussing behavior issues.  This is a convenient common frame of > reference so people know what the other is talking about.

Cindi is trying to use semantics, like yourself, to discredit information that invalidates everything that you subscribe to… She’s parroting Fraud Die and Koehler, and the MonkeysofNotsoNewSkeete, all the worst philosophies and abusive techniques all in a nice disguise of dog training information. Bull. >  The use of the > ’scientific technical’ jargon is useful since everybody has their own feelings > and experiences that will make up their own non-standard definition of the > words.  You can’t expect people to understand one another if they are both using > their own definitions of the words.

You can’t expect people to fall for the same old crap for another decade. I’m not going to sit back and let it go unchallenged… > It is also useful in understanding why something works or doesn’t work.  So I > can read Fred Hassan’s post on training with the e-collar and understand what he > is doing and why it works.

You don’t understand shit. Nor does Fraud Die, or else you’d never need to use the abuse and force you all condone. You are no better than Koehler, the monster. > It can also help seperate the ‘chaff from the wheat’ so to speak.  To understand > the logic of why something works rather than the superstition – i.e. ‘You must > hold the leash with your hand at this angle while reciting the Magna Carta, > otherwise you’re doing it all wrong and you won’t get good results’.

You don’t have enough intelligence to see howe holding the lead properly sets the stage for the rest of the mistakes you people make when handling and training. Don’t bother to learn correctly, hell, you’re a pro. You can’t learn anything, you know it all. When you first learned to write, the teacher insisted on holding the pen and paper properly. It took several months to learn howe to set it up correctly to draw a straight line, and then a round circle. Was that all superstition???? > Well, no it doesn’t work because ‘You must hold the leash with your hand at this > angle while reciting the Magna Carta’, it works because it follows the logic of > punishment (negative and positive) and reinforcement (positive and negative), > using the technical terms everybody agrees upon as a common reference.

No, you jump from the important point, to screwing it up with trash and semantics. Let’s put away the bull. Call a spade a spade. > Using these common frames of references could help you explain to Cindi how your > ‘training discs’ work and why.

Anybody with a half a F’n brain could understand, were they not trying to confound the issue in the hopes of justifying their abusive methods as being proper. If you’re so freaking smart, why don’t you try to explain all that you know about it to Cindi? You could practice with me. Howe about that? I’ll ask you some questions, Howe’d you like that??? > But you have to be using the same terms with the > same meanings.

You want some terms that you’ll understand? I’ve got a few you’d find enlightening. I’ll refrain for now. > Since many of the people of the people here are familiar with > the different training styles and trainers/writers you could also refer back to > a reference in a book (like Rogerson) and then at least people could look it up > in a book and understand what you were talking about.

I’d rather send them the the Wits’ End Dog Training Method manual, at least they won’t be compromised by the same misinformation you have been malfunctioning under. Here, try it and see for yourself: http://www.doggydoright.com Remember, Topper: If you have to do things to your dog to train him, that you would rather not have to do, then you shouldn’t be doing them. If you have a dog trainer that tells you to jerk your dog around, shock, or punish him in any manner, that corrections are appropriate, that the dog won’t think of you as the punisher, or that corrections are not harmful, or can’t train your dog to do what you want, look for a trainer that knows Howe. > Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info

Sincerely, Jerry Howe, Wits’ End Dog Training Nature, to be mastered, must be obeyed.                       -Francis Bacon- There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem, bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after.  Who ever can’t hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all.                      -Nietzsche- The abilities to think, rationalize and solve problems are learned qualities. The Wits’ End Dog Training Method challenges the learning centers in the dogs brain. These centers, once challenged, develop and continue to grow exponentially, to make him smarter. The Wits’ End Dog Training method capitalizes on praising split seconds of canine thought, strategy, and timing, not mindless hours of forced repetition, constant corrections, and scolding.                   -Jerry Howe-

Response:

>Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out the >Get a grip!

Marilyn really isn’t that bad; at least she has yet to hurl an insult, and as far as I know hasn’t called anyone else "abusive" for not using her methods.  I’m willing to at least listen to anyone who will debate under those terms.  I do agree with Cindi’s sentiment though; it is extremely difficult to understand what she is trying to say, because she defines commonly used terms differently than everyone else. Personally, I would avoid the terms altogether and just explain the method without ‘em. Now Jerry, canis55, and the self-proclaimed "master," (who you seem to have missed <G>) I will not lend a moment of my time to. Denna Lasik "Intelligence is like a river; the deeper it runs, the less noise it makes." "Insults, like violence, are the last resort of the incompetent"

Response:

>Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out the

I wouldn’t put Marilyn or Canis or really anybody else in the same catagory as Jerry.  They’re a little strange with some of their logic and reasoning perhaps, but Jerry pretty much belongs in a catagory all by himself. Dog FAQs: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ rec.pets.dogs.info

Response:

>Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out the on > I wouldn’t put Marilyn or Canis or really anybody else in the same catagory as > Jerry.  They’re a little strange with some of their logic and reasoning perhaps, > but Jerry pretty much belongs in a catagory all by himself.

Hi Ludwig, ’strange’ – I like that – no, really – thank you Ludwig. By the way, I never thanked you for the advice you gave me back there – to watch, wait and prepare (something like that).  Best advice ever.  I don’t mind being seen as strange,  some real top people have been seen that way.  Better than naive, anyway. lol. Regards, Marilyn. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info

Response:

Dear Sir, Imagine you lived in New York City. Imagine a big part of your job was to relieve dogs of behavior problems. Imagine the degree of impact these behavior problem would have on a dog owner’s life in an urban environment like New York City. Imagine that the standard approaches you were using were and are ineffective. That, dear sir, is the kind of situation that inspires innovation and an attitude of experimentation. Imagine some of your "experiments" yielded surprising results. Imagine, your sense of betrayal, as you tried to make sense of what you were now seeing, namely that most of what we know about dogs is wrong. Now imagine, you are asked–politely or otherwise–to explain why what you are doing works better than any other method you have seen. Imagine if you fail to explain why it works, or your audience fails to understand–remember, it goes against everything they think they know about dogs–why or how it works, then they will simply insist that it can’t possibly be working. Now, sir, you are standing in my shoes. Look around. What do you feel? Do you feel safe? Do you dare to put yourself on the line and make a statement that might be challenged? Do you step up to the chopping block and utter what you know to be the truth?              A smile, hereby extended to Mr. Jerry Howe.                  A courtly bow to the Lady Rammell.                Ave! The Master. Morituri te salutant.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out the <scibbling on > I wouldn’t put Marilyn or Canis or really anybody else in the same catagory as > Jerry.  They’re a little strange with some of their logic and reasoning perhaps, > but Jerry pretty much belongs in a catagory all by himself. > Dog FAQs: > http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ > rec.pets.dogs.info

– I trains’em as I sees’em. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

>Hi Ludwig, >’strange’ – I like that – no, really – thank you Ludwig. >By the way, I never thanked you for the advice you gave me back >there – to watch, wait and prepare (something like that).  Best advice >ever.  I don’t mind being seen as strange,  some real top people have been >seen that way.  Better than naive, anyway. lol.

Well, the exact advice I was given was ‘Lurk, Leach, Learn – then post’, but many people misunderstand the ‘leach’ part so I usually leave that out.  There’s a lot here you still don’t understand.  The regular posters have a common frame of reference going back years, you only have a common frame of reference going back weeks.   You tend to assume that you know enough about the people here to make assumptions and you tend to explain too little.   There is a *vast* range of abilities and experience with the regulars.  Many of them have been working with dogs for decades in capacities other than ‘pets’ – field training, protection, Search and Rescue (SAR), obedience competition, Rescue.  They are very familiar with and use all sorts of training styles and have good reasons for why they do what they do.  Many of them are quite familiar with different training styles and the names of the top trainers in both the US and Britain are nothing new to them. The little recent exchange with Cindi (with an ‘i’), as an example.  Cindi was using terms in a ‘technical’ behavior sense which is commonly done among the regulars discussing behavior issues.  This is a convenient common frame of reference so people know what the other is talking about.  The use of the ’scientific technical’ jargon is useful since everybody has their own feelings and experiences that will make up their own non-standard definition of the words.  You can’t expect people to understand one another if they are both using their own definitions of the words. It is also useful in understanding why something works or doesn’t work.  So I can read Fred Hassan’s post on training with the e-collar and understand what he is doing and why it works.   It can also help seperate the ‘chaff from the wheat’ so to speak.  To understand the logic of why something works rather than the superstition – i.e. ‘You must hold the leash with your hand at this angle while reciting the Magna Carta, otherwise you’re doing it all wrong and you won’t get good results’. Well, no it doesn’t work because ‘You must hold the leash with your hand at this angle while reciting the Magna Carta’, it works because it follows the logic of punishment (negative and positive) and reinforcement (positive and negative), using the technical terms everybody agrees upon as a common reference. Using these common frames of references could help you explain to Cindi how your ‘training discs’ work and why.  But you have to be using the same terms with the same meanings.  Since many of the people of the people here are familiar with the different training styles and trainers/writers you could also refer back to a reference in a book (like Rogerson) and then at least people could look it up in a book and understand what you were talking about. Dog FAQs: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ rec.pets.dogs.info

Response:

Ok, I’ve been here a whole day now (maybe) and am already picking out the Get a grip! — Mali "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone, > I’m Susan from Brighton, UK and  I adopted a rescue dog, Woody, about > 7 > weeks ago.  He’s an 18mth old GS cross, neutered.  Woody has a lovely > temperament, he’s lively, alert & playful.  Loves people and other > animals. > I couldn’t have picked a better dog (or did he pick me??? Hmmmm!!) > Picture > of the boy attached!!! > Anyway, I have 2 main problems with him:- > 1)  He is obedient when indoors but goes deaf when outdoors.  I would > love > to let him off the lead at my local park but he just doesn’t come when > I > call him.  The trouble is that he wants to play with anything that > moves – > dogs, people, birds etc.  and I just know that if he spotted something > interesting outside the park, he’d be off! He would not let a busy > road > intimidate him either so he could get hurt.  How can I train him to > obey my > commands? > 2)  When we go out into the countryside, I do let him off and he has a > good > run.  However, in his state of excitement, he runs up behind me, > jumps up > and bites my arm – not drawing blood but often bruising me.  He also > nips > the back of my legs.  This is playful and not aggressive but I really > want > to stop him doing it. > We had two training classes in using the lead which was new to both of > us!! > This worked well but I can’t afford classes any more.  Can anyone > offer any > advice or recommend a book that will teach me to train him?? > I really appreciate your help! > Love Suzie > Dear Suzie, > First of all, you may be far too friendly to have wandered into these > parts. Strangely enough, the most polite person on this board, Marilyn, > is also a Briton. You guys are really making us look rude and > ill-mannered. Or is it *we* who are making ourselves appear that way? > Welcome to the board, Suzie. Stiff upper lip. Don’t let all the > nastiness scare you. We have our problems, but we get some work done > also. > Here’s my completely radical suggestion for you. > You’ve listed 2 problems. You can solve problem number one better than > any other method by using problem number two to train your dog. That’s > the way I train dogs. It’s simple. It’s fun for both you and the dog. > It’s natural. And it works better than any other training method anyone > is using. > Look through some of my posts, and also those of the_master222, who has > suddenly become just The Master. If it makes sense to you, post back, > I’ll see what we can accomplish on line. > Love also I guess, > canis55 > — > I trains’em as I sees’em. > Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

> Dear Canis > Thank you for replying to my plea!

You are most certainly welcome. > You’re right, I’ve just read a few postings and I am far too friendly and > polite for you lot!  But beware – given the right bait, I bite!!

Good Girl! > So, am I right in thinking that I can use the fact that Woody chases me to > get him to ‘come’?  We play a game indoors where I run from one room to > another shouting "Bye" as I leave.  He goes bananas and chases me, trying to > get into the next room before me.  Great fun!!

Excellent. And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. > However, he does do the > biting thing too which isn’t so nice.  I’ve been saying "No" firmly but > according to what I’ve read here "No" is a no no. Yes?

"NO" is still under discussion. Keep up with the threads and come to your own conclusions. Don’t let any of us bully or intimidate you. Read whatever it is we’re really saying and make up your mind based upon that. I don’t use the "N" word with dogs. I did. I don’t anymore. My clients don’t, and the dogs we’ve stopped using it with are calmer and have less behavior problems. Sometimes I’ll just present it as an experiment to someone who is not a client. That will be the only change in their dealing with their dog. They get no other advice from me at all. 4 or 5 days later, they’ll tell me that the behavior problem they were concerned with is greatly diminished or completely gone. They did nothing else. I’m not sure, but I think that’s a pretty pure indication that the "N" word is toxic. For right now, see what happens if you get him (what’s your dog’s name) worked up to the point of biting, then say "Ouch!" and freeze. Then no movement that would trigger his prey drive. If he’s settled down just a bit, praise and get him worked up again. Do this all fast so that the results of things are connected in his mind. "I’m having a blast. I bite down too hard. ‘Ouch!’The game ends along with my positive flow of feelings. Damn I get nothing from this weird creature when I bite that hard. What the hell is her problem? ‘Good dog!’ But wait, here we go again. Oh man, this feels great. This chick’s awesome in about twelve different ways. ‘Ouch!’ Now what? What is this chick’s damage, man? ‘Good Dog’ Oh, this is great. ‘Ouch!’ Now what? Oh yeah, wait a minute, that bite thing. She does that positive sound thing with her voice when I bite the tennis ball really hard. We have a blast playing tug of war, but if I bite parts of her really hard it doesn’t feel good to me. I get disconnected from her and all the positive feelings stop flowing. Biting a tennis ball feels great! Biting her doesn’t satisfy me, in fact it makes me feel incomplete and disconnected from her. I’ve sort of cartooned it all for you. The dog really isn’t doing this kind of complex thinking, but I needed to amuse myself, and I don’t think it will do any harm to have you see it this way. The truth is if you could make a sagittal cut on your dog’s skull, inside (where there should be a brain) you would probably find a wad of chewing gum. They’re smart, but a lot of higher thinking capabilities are beyond them. Anything we teach your dog is going to be like this: Rough housing– 1) THIS IS THE GAME: We dance. We jump up. We chase. We mouth. We bite.    We tug. 2) THESE ARE THE RULES OF THE GAME: I cannot initiate this game by doing anything myself. (For now anyway) Only she signals the beginning of this game. She also signals it’s end. When I bite on her, the game ends. When I tug on her clothing or the leash, the game ends. My behavior can cause the game to end. 3) THE RULES ALWAYS APPLY (this is later in training, Suzie, and more applicable to games like "sit" or "stay". Yeah, those will be games too. Although it sort of applies here also. > Thank you for your offer of help it’s much appreciated and  Marilyn reckons > I should bite your hand off before you change your mind.  Hows that for a > recommendation!!!!

That’s all I can manage right now. I’m hoping Marilyn will help out also. We can do the whole thing right here on line. If the threads get too crazy or hostile we’ll switch over to Email. I probably should read that whole thing over and post it later, but I’d rather just stay comfortable and keep the suff flowing. If I need to make corrections or add anything, I’ll do it later. There’s gonna be some draw backs to doing this on line, but I think it’ll be possible. > Suzie (I suppose Love Suzie is too strong for this ng??!)

Love, canis55 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dear Suzie, >First of all, you may be far too friendly to have wandered into these >parts. >Here’s my completely radical suggestion for you. >You’ve listed 2 problems. You can solve problem number one better than >any other method by using problem number two to train your dog. That’s >the way I train dogs. It’s simple. It’s fun for both you and the dog. >It’s natural. And it works better than any other training method anyone >is using. >Look through some of my posts, and also those of the_master222, who has >suddenly become just The Master. If it makes sense to you, post back, >I’ll see what we can accomplish on line. >Love also I guess, >canis55

– I trains’em as I sees’em. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Dear Canis Thank you for replying to my plea! You’re right, I’ve just read a few postings and I am far too friendly and polite for you lot!  But beware – given the right bait, I bite!! So, am I right in thinking that I can use the fact that Woody chases me to get him to ‘come’?  We play a game indoors where I run from one room to another shouting "Bye" as I leave.  He goes bananas and chases me, trying to get into the next room before me.  Great fun!!  However, he does do the biting thing too which isn’t so nice.  I’ve been saying "No" firmly but according to what I’ve read here "No" is a no no. Yes? Thank you for your offer of help it’s much appreciated and  Marilyn reckons I should bite your hand off before you change your mind.  Hows that for a recommendation!!!! Suzie (I suppose Love Suzie is too strong for this ng??!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Dear Suzie, >First of all, you may be far too friendly to have wandered into these >parts. >Here’s my completely radical suggestion for you. >You’ve listed 2 problems. You can solve problem number one better than >any other method by using problem number two to train your dog. That’s >the way I train dogs. It’s simple. It’s fun for both you and the dog. >It’s natural. And it works better than any other training method anyone >is using. >Look through some of my posts, and also those of the_master222, who has >suddenly become just The Master. If it makes sense to you, post back, >I’ll see what we can accomplish on line. >Love also I guess, >canis55

Response:

Hi Susan, Well, you’re not ‘that’ far away from me – Has that old pier fallen in the sea yet? Susan, take Canis’s offer – grab it before he/she changes mind.  Also, if you want a hand from someone a little closer,  read my posts (praticularly ‘No, dont say No’) and let me know if you think I can help you.  I could give you an answer straight away to your present problem but will leave that to Canis.  Read between the lines with some responses by the way, and don’t be intimidated by some of the attitudes here.   ‘Everything teaches us Something’. Regards, Marilyn Rammell — http://www.angelfire.com/mb/dogtraining/homepage.html Turn negative to positive and be positive to learn – Educating a dog or a child means that you find a way to teach them right from wrong and show examples of the same, while teaching. If we show aggression, we are teaching aggression. If we show understanding and trust, we are teaching understanding and trust. If we show temper,  We teach lack of control. If we teach respectfully,  we teach repect. If we teach love,  we get love. If we teach hate,  we get lost. If we think about it – we get results. If we do anything to others (including animals) we would not have done to us – we are hypocrites.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone, > I’m Susan from Brighton, UK and  I adopted a rescue dog, Woody, about > 7 > weeks ago.  He’s an 18mth old GS cross, neutered.  Woody has a lovely > temperament, he’s lively, alert & playful.  Loves people and other > animals. > I couldn’t have picked a better dog (or did he pick me??? Hmmmm!!) > Picture > of the boy attached!!! > Anyway, I have 2 main problems with him:- > 1)  He is obedient when indoors but goes deaf when outdoors.  I would > love > to let him off the lead at my local park but he just doesn’t come when > I > call him.  The trouble is that he wants to play with anything that > moves – > dogs, people, birds etc.  and I just know that if he spotted something > interesting outside the park, he’d be off! He would not let a busy > road > intimidate him either so he could get hurt.  How can I train him to > obey my > commands? > 2)  When we go out into the countryside, I do let him off and he has a > good > run.  However, in his state of excitement, he runs up behind me, > jumps up > and bites my arm – not drawing blood but often bruising me.  He also > nips > the back of my legs.  This is playful and not aggressive but I really > want > to stop him doing it. > We had two training classes in using the lead which was new to both of > us!! > This worked well but I can’t afford classes any more.  Can anyone > offer any > advice or recommend a book that will teach me to train him?? > I really appreciate your help! > Love Suzie > Dear Suzie, > First of all, you may be far too friendly to have wandered into these > parts. Strangely enough, the most polite person on this board, Marilyn, > is also a Briton. You guys are really making us look rude and > ill-mannered. Or is it *we* who are making ourselves appear that way? > Welcome to the board, Suzie. Stiff upper lip. Don’t let all the > nastiness scare you. We have our problems, but we get some work done > also. > Here’s my completely radical suggestion for you. > You’ve listed 2 problems. You can solve problem number one better than > any other method by using problem number two to train your dog. That’s > the way I train dogs. It’s simple. It’s fun for both you and the dog. > It’s natural. And it works better than any other training method anyone > is using. > Look through some of my posts, and also those of the_master222, who has > suddenly become just The Master. If it makes sense to you, post back, > I’ll see what we can accomplish on line. > Love also I guess, > canis55 > — > I trains’em as I sees’em. > Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Hello everyone, I’m Susan from Brighton, UK and  I adopted a rescue dog, Woody, about 7 weeks ago.  He’s an 18mth old GS cross, neutered.  Woody has a lovely temperament, he’s lively, alert & playful.  Loves people and other animals. I couldn’t have picked a better dog (or did he pick me??? Hmmmm!!)  Picture of the boy attached!!! Anyway, I have 2 main problems with him:- 1)  He is obedient when indoors but goes deaf when outdoors.  I would love to let him off the lead at my local park but he just doesn’t come when I call him.  The trouble is that he wants to play with anything that moves – dogs, people, birds etc.  and I just know that if he spotted something interesting outside the park, he’d be off! He would not let a busy road intimidate him either so he could get hurt.  How can I train him to obey my commands? 2)  When we go out into the countryside, I do let him off and he has a good run.  However, in his state of excitement, he runs up behind me,  jumps up and bites my arm – not drawing blood but often bruising me.  He also nips the back of my legs.  This is playful and not aggressive but I really want to stop him doing it. We had two training classes in using the lead which was new to both of us!! This worked well but I can’t afford classes any more.  Can anyone offer any advice or recommend a book that will teach me to train him?? I really appreciate your help! Love Suzie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello everyone, > I’m Susan from Brighton, UK and  I adopted a rescue dog, Woody, about 7 > weeks ago.  He’s an 18mth old GS cross, neutered.  Woody has a lovely > temperament, he’s lively, alert & playful.  Loves people and other animals. > I couldn’t have picked a better dog (or did he pick me??? Hmmmm!!) Picture > of the boy attached!!! > Anyway, I have 2 main problems with him:- > 1)  He is obedient when indoors but goes deaf when outdoors.  I would love > to let him off the lead at my local park but he just doesn’t come when I > call him.  The trouble is that he wants to play with anything that moves – > dogs, people, birds etc.  and I just know that if he spotted something > interesting outside the park, he’d be off! He would not let a busy road > intimidate him either so he could get hurt.  How can I train him to obey my > commands? > 2)  When we go out into the countryside, I do let him off and he has a good > run.  However, in his state of excitement, he runs up behind me, jumps up > and bites my arm – not drawing blood but often bruising me.  He also nips > the back of my legs.  This is playful and not aggressive but I really want > to stop him doing it. > We had two training classes in using the lead which was new to both of us!! > This worked well but I can’t afford classes any more.  Can anyone offer any > advice or recommend a book that will teach me to train him?? > I really appreciate your help! > Love Suzie

Dear Suzie, First of all, you may be far too friendly to have wandered into these parts. Strangely enough, the most polite person on this board, Marilyn, is also a Briton. You guys are really making us look rude and ill-mannered. Or is it *we* who are making ourselves appear that way? Welcome to the board, Suzie. Stiff upper lip. Don’t let all the nastiness scare you. We have our problems, but we get some work done also. Here’s my completely radical suggestion for you. You’ve listed 2 problems. You can solve problem number one better than any other method by using problem number two to train your dog. That’s the way I train dogs. It’s simple. It’s fun for both you and the dog. It’s natural. And it works better than any other training method anyone is using. Look through some of my posts, and also those of the_master222, who has suddenly become just The Master. If it makes sense to you, post back, I’ll see what we can accomplish on line. Love also I guess, canis55 — I trains’em as I sees’em. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response: